Walthamstow Stadium protest today

CAMPAIGNERS who are angry about Walthamstow Stadium being turned into a housing estate are to hold a protest outside it today (Saturday November 10).

London Mayor Boris Johnson rubber stamped the controversial plans last week after they had initially been approved by councillors earlier this year.

There is currently a ban on moving marches in Waltham Forest due to a failed attempt by the far-right English Defence League (EDL) to hold a demonstration in Walthamstow last month, so today's protest will be static.

It takes place on the grass outside the venue, in Chingford Road, Chingford, at 1pm.

Share article

The stadium closed in 2008 and campaigners have been calling for it to be reopened with dog racing ever since.

Developers London and Quadrant (L&Q) say the 294 home complex will provide much-needed jobs and housing for the area.

Promoted Stories

Comments (60)

yes much needed homes but who For ? The tax payer will lose 24.1 million !! Thats value - well done marie pye ,loakes you both set this deal up- we know you did !! and so will the BBC shortly when you get investigated for fraud

yes much needed homes but who For ?
The tax payer will lose 24.1 million !!
Thats value - well done marie pye ,loakes you both set this deal up- we know you did !! and so will the BBC shortly when you get investigated for fraudwaltham

yes much needed homes but who For ? The tax payer will lose 24.1 million !! Thats value - well done marie pye ,loakes you both set this deal up- we know you did !! and so will the BBC shortly when you get investigated for fraud

Score: 0

bishbosh says...9:55am Sat 10 Nov 12

Maybe elected members, Loakes Pye or Robbins could be there today to explain what benefit this development will have to the local community. I am sure they will be listened too unlike the majority of residents who do not want this monstrosity.

Maybe elected members, Loakes Pye or Robbins could be there today to explain
what benefit this development will have to the local community. I am sure they will be listened too unlike the majority of residents who do not want this monstrosity.bishbosh

Maybe elected members, Loakes Pye or Robbins could be there today to explain what benefit this development will have to the local community. I am sure they will be listened too unlike the majority of residents who do not want this monstrosity.

Score: 0

Cornbeefur says...12:06pm Sat 10 Nov 12

bishbosh wrote…

Maybe elected members, Loakes Pye or Robbins could be there today to explain what benefit this development will have to the local community. I am sure they will be listened too unlike the majority of residents who do not want this monstrosity.

Yes the majority of Nimby residents do not want it through fear that the new residents will be reliant on benefits and make the price of their own homes tumble. This has never been about the Cranberry Tinted Memories of The Stow at all.

[quote][p][bold]bishbosh[/bold] wrote:
Maybe elected members, Loakes Pye or Robbins could be there today to explain
what benefit this development will have to the local community. I am sure they will be listened too unlike the majority of residents who do not want this monstrosity.[/p][/quote]Yes the majority of Nimby residents do not want it through fear that the new residents will be reliant on benefits and make the price of their own homes tumble.
This has never been about the Cranberry Tinted Memories of The Stow at all.Cornbeefur

bishbosh wrote…

Maybe elected members, Loakes Pye or Robbins could be there today to explain what benefit this development will have to the local community. I am sure they will be listened too unlike the majority of residents who do not want this monstrosity.

Yes the majority of Nimby residents do not want it through fear that the new residents will be reliant on benefits and make the price of their own homes tumble. This has never been about the Cranberry Tinted Memories of The Stow at all.

Score: 0

Stow Residents/Community Association says...12:08pm Sat 10 Nov 12

Please come along if you dont agree with the decision to approve the L&Q plans and sign our petitions in support of further action. We understand Iain Duncan-Smith will attending and making a big announcement and have been told by Save our Stow that Celebrities including Mark Wright from The Only Way is Essex are showing their support by attending today.

Please come along if you dont agree with the decision to approve the L&Q plans and sign our petitions in support of further action.
We understand Iain Duncan-Smith will attending and making a big announcement and have been told by Save our Stow that Celebrities including Mark Wright from The Only Way is Essex are showing their support by attending today.Stow Residents/Community Association

Please come along if you dont agree with the decision to approve the L&Q plans and sign our petitions in support of further action. We understand Iain Duncan-Smith will attending and making a big announcement and have been told by Save our Stow that Celebrities including Mark Wright from The Only Way is Essex are showing their support by attending today.

Score: 0

E17_er says...1:53pm Sat 10 Nov 12

Cornbeefur wrote…

bishbosh wrote…

Maybe elected members, Loakes Pye or Robbins could be there today to explain what benefit this development will have to the local community. I am sure they will be listened too unlike the majority of residents who do not want this monstrosity.

Yes the majority of Nimby residents do not want it through fear that the new residents will be reliant on benefits and make the price of their own homes tumble. This has never been about the Cranberry Tinted Memories of The Stow at all.

Always good to get the views of non-locals like Cornbeefur there...

[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bishbosh[/bold] wrote:
Maybe elected members, Loakes Pye or Robbins could be there today to explain
what benefit this development will have to the local community. I am sure they will be listened too unlike the majority of residents who do not want this monstrosity.[/p][/quote]Yes the majority of Nimby residents do not want it through fear that the new residents will be reliant on benefits and make the price of their own homes tumble.
This has never been about the Cranberry Tinted Memories of The Stow at all.[/p][/quote]Always good to get the views of non-locals like Cornbeefur there...E17_er

Cornbeefur wrote…

bishbosh wrote…

Maybe elected members, Loakes Pye or Robbins could be there today to explain what benefit this development will have to the local community. I am sure they will be listened too unlike the majority of residents who do not want this monstrosity.

Yes the majority of Nimby residents do not want it through fear that the new residents will be reliant on benefits and make the price of their own homes tumble. This has never been about the Cranberry Tinted Memories of The Stow at all.

Always good to get the views of non-locals like Cornbeefur there...

Score: 0

bishbosh says...2:02pm Sat 10 Nov 12

It is about many things..the focus is now on the lack of value for money taxpayers are getting on this development. No one today wants this development and IDS highlighted that L and Q are very likely to let the place rot and re submit another application to build even more flats

It is about many things..the focus is now on the lack of value for money taxpayers are getting on this development. No one today wants this development and IDS highlighted that L and Q are very likely to let the place rot and re submit another application to build even more flatsbishbosh

It is about many things..the focus is now on the lack of value for money taxpayers are getting on this development. No one today wants this development and IDS highlighted that L and Q are very likely to let the place rot and re submit another application to build even more flats

Score: 0

howard0181 says...2:28pm Sat 10 Nov 12

Standing outside the Stow today and looking at the locality the proposed 7 storey ghetto dies not fit in with the neighbourhood. You don't need to be a planning expert to understand this. It's logic. LBWF should have listened to what the local neighbourhood want and they do not want a ghetto. In addition, there is the loss of the iconic Stow. How can a local authority throw away its number one entertainment venue? I am hoping Eric Pickles intervenes but if not I am confident that an independent judge at Judicial Review will finally be the person to take the time to see all the evidence and throw these horrible plans on the bin where they belong. This is not over!!!!

Standing outside the Stow today and looking at the locality the proposed 7 storey ghetto dies not fit in with the neighbourhood. You don't need to be a planning expert to understand this. It's logic. LBWF should have listened to what the local neighbourhood want and they do not want a ghetto. In addition, there is the loss of the iconic Stow. How can a local authority throw away its number one entertainment venue? I am hoping Eric Pickles intervenes but if not I am confident that an independent judge at Judicial Review will finally be the person to take the time to see all the evidence and throw these horrible plans on the bin where they belong. This is not over!!!!howard0181

Standing outside the Stow today and looking at the locality the proposed 7 storey ghetto dies not fit in with the neighbourhood. You don't need to be a planning expert to understand this. It's logic. LBWF should have listened to what the local neighbourhood want and they do not want a ghetto. In addition, there is the loss of the iconic Stow. How can a local authority throw away its number one entertainment venue? I am hoping Eric Pickles intervenes but if not I am confident that an independent judge at Judicial Review will finally be the person to take the time to see all the evidence and throw these horrible plans on the bin where they belong. This is not over!!!!

Score: 0

Mark Dawes says...2:36pm Sat 10 Nov 12

Those lobbying for the return of dog racing are not facing reality. The Mayor’s report says that both his office and the GLA assessment of a return of dog racing found that it was not viable. As did a previous assessment that said a dog track was ““not financially viable (by a significant margin).” It is also worth saying that of the 2380 representations to the GLA on the scheme, 1990 were opposed to the dog track reopening because of animal welfare concerns. Not viable and unpopular, it is time to move on and consign this cruel “sport” to history.

Those lobbying for the return of dog racing are not facing reality. The Mayor’s report says that both his office and the GLA assessment of a return of dog racing found that it was not viable. As did a previous assessment that said a dog track was ““not financially viable (by a significant margin).”
It is also worth saying that of the 2380 representations to the GLA on the scheme, 1990 were opposed to the dog track reopening because of animal welfare concerns.
Not viable and unpopular, it is time to move on and consign this cruel “sport” to history.Mark Dawes

Those lobbying for the return of dog racing are not facing reality. The Mayor’s report says that both his office and the GLA assessment of a return of dog racing found that it was not viable. As did a previous assessment that said a dog track was ““not financially viable (by a significant margin).” It is also worth saying that of the 2380 representations to the GLA on the scheme, 1990 were opposed to the dog track reopening because of animal welfare concerns. Not viable and unpopular, it is time to move on and consign this cruel “sport” to history.

Score: 0

howard0181 says...2:41pm Sat 10 Nov 12

The Mayors Decision for reasons which will become apparent are flawed. Simply put Boris has his sums wrong!! This is not over.

The Mayors Decision for reasons which will become apparent are flawed. Simply put Boris has his sums wrong!!
This is not over.howard0181

The Mayors Decision for reasons which will become apparent are flawed. Simply put Boris has his sums wrong!! This is not over.

Score: 0

E17_er says...2:43pm Sat 10 Nov 12

Mark Dawes wrote…

Those lobbying for the return of dog racing are not facing reality. The Mayor’s report says that both his office and the GLA assessment of a return of dog racing found that it was not viable. As did a previous assessment that said a dog track was ““not financially viable (by a significant margin).” It is also worth saying that of the 2380 representations to the GLA on the scheme, 1990 were opposed to the dog track reopening because of animal welfare concerns. Not viable and unpopular, it is time to move on and consign this cruel “sport” to history.

What about the rest of us who are opposed to the development on the grounds of it being a monstrosity and a financial basket case.

[quote][p][bold]Mark Dawes[/bold] wrote:
Those lobbying for the return of dog racing are not facing reality. The Mayor’s report says that both his office and the GLA assessment of a return of dog racing found that it was not viable. As did a previous assessment that said a dog track was ““not financially viable (by a significant margin).”
It is also worth saying that of the 2380 representations to the GLA on the scheme, 1990 were opposed to the dog track reopening because of animal welfare concerns.
Not viable and unpopular, it is time to move on and consign this cruel “sport” to history.[/p][/quote]What about the rest of us who are opposed to the development on the grounds of it being a monstrosity and a financial basket case.E17_er

Mark Dawes wrote…

Those lobbying for the return of dog racing are not facing reality. The Mayor’s report says that both his office and the GLA assessment of a return of dog racing found that it was not viable. As did a previous assessment that said a dog track was ““not financially viable (by a significant margin).” It is also worth saying that of the 2380 representations to the GLA on the scheme, 1990 were opposed to the dog track reopening because of animal welfare concerns. Not viable and unpopular, it is time to move on and consign this cruel “sport” to history.

What about the rest of us who are opposed to the development on the grounds of it being a monstrosity and a financial basket case.

Score: 0

Stow Residents/Community Association says...3:39pm Sat 10 Nov 12

Thanks to everyone who attended, donated and signed the various support documents. Whilst photos were being taken people were queuing to give their signatures. The common theme is still that the majority do not want the height and density and the scheme that L&Q want to build. We continue to work on documentation in order to start the Judicial Review process. Bearing in mind the stadium closed in 2008 it is heartwarming to see that over 4 years later there is substantial public interest and objection to the changes planned for this site. If you were not happy with the decisions made, make sure your voice is heard and email eric.pickles@communi ties.gsi.gov.uk and Boris.Johnson@london .gov.uk both of whom will be included in our Judicial Review documentation

Thanks to everyone who attended, donated and signed the various support documents.
Whilst photos were being taken people were queuing to give their signatures.
The common theme is still that the majority do not want the height and density and the scheme that L&Q want to build.
We continue to work on documentation in order to start the Judicial Review process.
Bearing in mind the stadium closed in 2008 it is heartwarming to see that over 4 years later there is substantial public interest and objection to the changes planned for this site.
If you were not happy with the decisions made, make sure your voice is heard and email eric.pickles@communi
ties.gsi.gov.uk and Boris.Johnson@london
.gov.uk
both of whom will be included in our Judicial Review documentationStow Residents/Community Association

Thanks to everyone who attended, donated and signed the various support documents. Whilst photos were being taken people were queuing to give their signatures. The common theme is still that the majority do not want the height and density and the scheme that L&Q want to build. We continue to work on documentation in order to start the Judicial Review process. Bearing in mind the stadium closed in 2008 it is heartwarming to see that over 4 years later there is substantial public interest and objection to the changes planned for this site. If you were not happy with the decisions made, make sure your voice is heard and email eric.pickles@communi ties.gsi.gov.uk and Boris.Johnson@london .gov.uk both of whom will be included in our Judicial Review documentation

Score: 0

waltham says...4:09pm Sat 10 Nov 12

mark dawes you do a total disservice to the green party .You never learn you have already been told by the greens not to put out rubbish before and you were force to withdraw leaflets. once again your facts are wrong 1.paul clark government inspector stated L&Q had not proven greyhound racing was not viable -FACT 2.GLA had no reportinto greyhound racing done - FACT Before putting out rubbish - go tree hugging first 3. the number of antis were mainly from the usa and abroad because you put up petitions on line again without knowing the facts !!!! no wonder nobody takes the greens serious - except for obsessions By the way this is not over yet so your nutty vision of greyhound racing can continue in your mad world but its not reality Sorry

mark dawes you do a total disservice to the green party .You never learn you have already been told by the greens not to put out rubbish before and you were force to withdraw leaflets.
once again your facts are wrong
1.paul clark government inspector stated L&Q had not proven greyhound racing was not viable -FACT
2.GLA had no reportinto greyhound racing done - FACT
Before putting out rubbish - go tree hugging first
3. the number of antis were mainly from the usa and abroad because you put up petitions on line again without knowing the facts !!!!
no wonder nobody takes the greens serious - except for obsessions
By the way this is not over yet so your nutty vision of greyhound racing can continue in your mad world but its not reality Sorrywaltham

mark dawes you do a total disservice to the green party .You never learn you have already been told by the greens not to put out rubbish before and you were force to withdraw leaflets. once again your facts are wrong 1.paul clark government inspector stated L&Q had not proven greyhound racing was not viable -FACT 2.GLA had no reportinto greyhound racing done - FACT Before putting out rubbish - go tree hugging first 3. the number of antis were mainly from the usa and abroad because you put up petitions on line again without knowing the facts !!!! no wonder nobody takes the greens serious - except for obsessions By the way this is not over yet so your nutty vision of greyhound racing can continue in your mad world but its not reality Sorry

Score: 0

bishbosh says...5:20pm Sat 10 Nov 12

The e petition is still on the web. The antis had a target of 2000 they got 1249. Nine out of ten were from abroad..... check it out http://www.thepetiti onsite.com/2/no-to-t he-return-of-greyhou nd-racing-at-waltham stow/ the government inspector stated that greyhound racing would be viable on the site. The only reason greyhound racing is not viable on the site is that L and Q will not sell. Agreed a pretty big reason but that is the only reason the rest is rubbish.

The e petition is still on the web. The antis had a target of 2000 they got 1249.
Nine out of ten were from abroad.....
check it out
http://www.thepetiti
onsite.com/2/no-to-t
he-return-of-greyhou
nd-racing-at-waltham
stow/
the government inspector stated that greyhound racing would be viable on the site.
The only reason greyhound racing is not viable on the site is that L and Q will not sell. Agreed a pretty big reason but that is the only reason the rest is rubbish.bishbosh

The e petition is still on the web. The antis had a target of 2000 they got 1249. Nine out of ten were from abroad..... check it out http://www.thepetiti onsite.com/2/no-to-t he-return-of-greyhou nd-racing-at-waltham stow/ the government inspector stated that greyhound racing would be viable on the site. The only reason greyhound racing is not viable on the site is that L and Q will not sell. Agreed a pretty big reason but that is the only reason the rest is rubbish.

Score: 0

Greytexploitations says...6:41pm Sat 10 Nov 12

Lets be absolutely clear on this - if dog racing returns to the site - there will never be any houses built alongside. A fact I'm sure the Residents Association are well aware of. The dog track/housing mix is NOT compatible or viable. There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households. According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim. Islam considers gambling to be harmful and destructive to society and ptohibited. Stella Creasy has continually ignored requests to confirm or deny whether she has consulted at least a fifth of her constituents - Muslim - on this issue and also refuses to be drawn on welfare concerns. WHY?

Lets be absolutely clear on this - if dog racing returns to the site - there will never be any houses built alongside. A fact I'm sure the Residents Association are well aware of.
The dog track/housing mix is NOT compatible or viable.
There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households.
According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim.
Islam considers gambling to be harmful and destructive to society and ptohibited.
Stella Creasy has continually ignored requests to confirm or deny whether she has consulted at least a fifth of her constituents - Muslim - on this issue and also refuses to be drawn on welfare concerns.
WHY?Greytexploitations

Lets be absolutely clear on this - if dog racing returns to the site - there will never be any houses built alongside. A fact I'm sure the Residents Association are well aware of. The dog track/housing mix is NOT compatible or viable. There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households. According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim. Islam considers gambling to be harmful and destructive to society and ptohibited. Stella Creasy has continually ignored requests to confirm or deny whether she has consulted at least a fifth of her constituents - Muslim - on this issue and also refuses to be drawn on welfare concerns. WHY?

Score: 0

E17_er says...7:22pm Sat 10 Nov 12

Greytexploitations wrote…

Lets be absolutely clear on this - if dog racing returns to the site - there will never be any houses built alongside. A fact I'm sure the Residents Association are well aware of. The dog track/housing mix is NOT compatible or viable. There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households. According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim. Islam considers gambling to be harmful and destructive to society and ptohibited. Stella Creasy has continually ignored requests to confirm or deny whether she has consulted at least a fifth of her constituents - Muslim - on this issue and also refuses to be drawn on welfare concerns. WHY?

Lets be clear. You are a single issue commenter who has to find out information about the area via google.

[quote][p][bold]Greytexploitations[/bold] wrote:
Lets be absolutely clear on this - if dog racing returns to the site - there will never be any houses built alongside. A fact I'm sure the Residents Association are well aware of.
The dog track/housing mix is NOT compatible or viable.
There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households.
According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim.
Islam considers gambling to be harmful and destructive to society and ptohibited.
Stella Creasy has continually ignored requests to confirm or deny whether she has consulted at least a fifth of her constituents - Muslim - on this issue and also refuses to be drawn on welfare concerns.
WHY?[/p][/quote]Lets be clear. You are a single issue commenter who has to find out information about the area via google.E17_er

Greytexploitations wrote…

Lets be absolutely clear on this - if dog racing returns to the site - there will never be any houses built alongside. A fact I'm sure the Residents Association are well aware of. The dog track/housing mix is NOT compatible or viable. There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households. According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim. Islam considers gambling to be harmful and destructive to society and ptohibited. Stella Creasy has continually ignored requests to confirm or deny whether she has consulted at least a fifth of her constituents - Muslim - on this issue and also refuses to be drawn on welfare concerns. WHY?

Lets be clear. You are a single issue commenter who has to find out information about the area via google.

Score: 0

Ian RS2000 says...7:23pm Sat 10 Nov 12

Going by the turn out dog racing is finished .L&Q get it built

Going by the turn out dog racing is finished .L&Q get it builtIan RS2000

Going by the turn out dog racing is finished .L&Q get it built

Score: 0

Cornbeefur says...7:45pm Sat 10 Nov 12

Mark Dawes wrote…

Those lobbying for the return of dog racing are not facing reality. The Mayor’s report says that both his office and the GLA assessment of a return of dog racing found that it was not viable. As did a previous assessment that said a dog track was ““not financially viable (by a significant margin).” It is also worth saying that of the 2380 representations to the GLA on the scheme, 1990 were opposed to the dog track reopening because of animal welfare concerns. Not viable and unpopular, it is time to move on and consign this cruel “sport” to history.

The one man and a dog who turned up were representative of local opinion in reality. I as an authority of the area, have strived , against personal attacks against me to convince any readers, that this Enterprise was a family owned business who have moved with the times and sold the premises off at a price an ultimately, mitigated to suit their tax Liabilities, for their own advantage as anyone would in similar circumstances. I have been personally insulted by regular contributors for expressing my opinions (which are always correct). The sad fraud of the tale, is, that like the Falsehoods aired by the Granada Campaigners, people are being peddled lies and inaccuracies about bad managements and premises being sold at over -inflated prices. This is all about a) progression and b) Monies Locals got used to the Granada and the Stow in their Borough. They never or rarely attended. When they closed they had a jolt and started campaigns of Darleks and dressed kids up in Super Hero costumes to protest. All very pathetic as it all ultimately boils down to bottoms on seats and hard cash to keep these treasures alive. One may, like the Green Teeth, Cranberry Tinted Spectacle wearing Village inhabitants, who wear strange hats (where do you buy them?) Wander around eating Bacon-Jam sandwiches with fennel jus and drinking Over Priced Expressos with a vanilla injection, but does this really solve issues in the Borough?

[quote][p][bold]Mark Dawes[/bold] wrote:
Those lobbying for the return of dog racing are not facing reality. The Mayor’s report says that both his office and the GLA assessment of a return of dog racing found that it was not viable. As did a previous assessment that said a dog track was ““not financially viable (by a significant margin).”
It is also worth saying that of the 2380 representations to the GLA on the scheme, 1990 were opposed to the dog track reopening because of animal welfare concerns.
Not viable and unpopular, it is time to move on and consign this cruel “sport” to history.[/p][/quote]The one man and a dog who turned up were representative of local opinion in reality.
I as an authority of the area, have strived , against personal attacks against me to convince any readers, that this Enterprise was a family owned business who have moved with the times and sold the premises off at a price an ultimately, mitigated to suit their tax Liabilities, for their own advantage as anyone would in similar circumstances.
I have been personally insulted by regular contributors for expressing my opinions (which are always correct).
The sad fraud of the tale, is, that like the Falsehoods aired by the Granada Campaigners, people are being peddled lies and inaccuracies about bad managements and premises being sold at over -inflated prices.
This is all about a) progression and b) Monies
Locals got used to the Granada and the Stow in their Borough.
They never or rarely attended. When they closed they had a jolt and started campaigns of Darleks and dressed kids up in Super Hero costumes to protest. All very pathetic as it all ultimately boils down to bottoms on seats and hard cash to keep these treasures alive.
One may, like the Green Teeth, Cranberry Tinted Spectacle wearing Village inhabitants, who wear strange hats (where do you buy them?) Wander around eating Bacon-Jam sandwiches with fennel jus and drinking Over Priced Expressos with a vanilla injection, but does this really solve issues in the Borough?Cornbeefur

Mark Dawes wrote…

Those lobbying for the return of dog racing are not facing reality. The Mayor’s report says that both his office and the GLA assessment of a return of dog racing found that it was not viable. As did a previous assessment that said a dog track was ““not financially viable (by a significant margin).” It is also worth saying that of the 2380 representations to the GLA on the scheme, 1990 were opposed to the dog track reopening because of animal welfare concerns. Not viable and unpopular, it is time to move on and consign this cruel “sport” to history.

The one man and a dog who turned up were representative of local opinion in reality. I as an authority of the area, have strived , against personal attacks against me to convince any readers, that this Enterprise was a family owned business who have moved with the times and sold the premises off at a price an ultimately, mitigated to suit their tax Liabilities, for their own advantage as anyone would in similar circumstances. I have been personally insulted by regular contributors for expressing my opinions (which are always correct). The sad fraud of the tale, is, that like the Falsehoods aired by the Granada Campaigners, people are being peddled lies and inaccuracies about bad managements and premises being sold at over -inflated prices. This is all about a) progression and b) Monies Locals got used to the Granada and the Stow in their Borough. They never or rarely attended. When they closed they had a jolt and started campaigns of Darleks and dressed kids up in Super Hero costumes to protest. All very pathetic as it all ultimately boils down to bottoms on seats and hard cash to keep these treasures alive. One may, like the Green Teeth, Cranberry Tinted Spectacle wearing Village inhabitants, who wear strange hats (where do you buy them?) Wander around eating Bacon-Jam sandwiches with fennel jus and drinking Over Priced Expressos with a vanilla injection, but does this really solve issues in the Borough?

Score: 0

Techno3 says...7:49pm Sat 10 Nov 12

Greytexploitations wrote…

Lets be absolutely clear on this - if dog racing returns to the site - there will never be any houses built alongside. A fact I'm sure the Residents Association are well aware of. The dog track/housing mix is NOT compatible or viable. There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households. According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim. Islam considers gambling to be harmful and destructive to society and ptohibited. Stella Creasy has continually ignored requests to confirm or deny whether she has consulted at least a fifth of her constituents - Muslim - on this issue and also refuses to be drawn on welfare concerns. WHY?

I can't speak for Stella Creasy, in fact, I am known locally for regularly speaking against her, but if I were her I would also ignore your impertinant questions and demands. You do not live in her constituency. You don't even live in this country. You do not know about or care about local muslims, any more than you know about or care about anyone else who lives in this area. You only care about your misguided campaign to exagerrate a problem about dog welfare which will not exist when the dogtrack re-opens because plans are in place to deal with it. Your solution to the issue is disproportionate and ill-conceived. Your methods to propose your solution is socially destructive and undemocratic. They include telling lies and sticking your nose in the affairs of people you have never met and do not understand.

[quote][p][bold]Greytexploitations[/bold] wrote:
Lets be absolutely clear on this - if dog racing returns to the site - there will never be any houses built alongside. A fact I'm sure the Residents Association are well aware of.
The dog track/housing mix is NOT compatible or viable.
There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households.
According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim.
Islam considers gambling to be harmful and destructive to society and ptohibited.
Stella Creasy has continually ignored requests to confirm or deny whether she has consulted at least a fifth of her constituents - Muslim - on this issue and also refuses to be drawn on welfare concerns.
WHY?[/p][/quote]I can't speak for Stella Creasy, in fact, I am known locally for regularly speaking against her, but if I were her I would also ignore your impertinant questions and demands.
You do not live in her constituency. You don't even live in this country. You do not know about or care about local muslims, any more than you know about or care about anyone else who lives in this area.
You only care about your misguided campaign to exagerrate a problem about dog welfare which will not exist when the dogtrack re-opens because plans are in place to deal with it.
Your solution to the issue is disproportionate and ill-conceived. Your methods to propose your solution is socially destructive and undemocratic. They include telling lies and sticking your nose in the affairs of people you have never met and do not understand.Techno3

Greytexploitations wrote…

Lets be absolutely clear on this - if dog racing returns to the site - there will never be any houses built alongside. A fact I'm sure the Residents Association are well aware of. The dog track/housing mix is NOT compatible or viable. There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households. According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim. Islam considers gambling to be harmful and destructive to society and ptohibited. Stella Creasy has continually ignored requests to confirm or deny whether she has consulted at least a fifth of her constituents - Muslim - on this issue and also refuses to be drawn on welfare concerns. WHY?

I can't speak for Stella Creasy, in fact, I am known locally for regularly speaking against her, but if I were her I would also ignore your impertinant questions and demands. You do not live in her constituency. You don't even live in this country. You do not know about or care about local muslims, any more than you know about or care about anyone else who lives in this area. You only care about your misguided campaign to exagerrate a problem about dog welfare which will not exist when the dogtrack re-opens because plans are in place to deal with it. Your solution to the issue is disproportionate and ill-conceived. Your methods to propose your solution is socially destructive and undemocratic. They include telling lies and sticking your nose in the affairs of people you have never met and do not understand.

Score: 0

Techno3 says...8:15pm Sat 10 Nov 12

Mark Dawes wrote…

Those lobbying for the return of dog racing are not facing reality. The Mayor’s report says that both his office and the GLA assessment of a return of dog racing found that it was not viable. As did a previous assessment that said a dog track was ““not financially viable (by a significant margin).” It is also worth saying that of the 2380 representations to the GLA on the scheme, 1990 were opposed to the dog track reopening because of animal welfare concerns. Not viable and unpopular, it is time to move on and consign this cruel “sport” to history.

As Waltham points out, racing on the site is still potentially viable. That is not really in dispute by most people. The alternative Morton plan also makes the viability issue clear as renewing racing is an integral element of it. He wouldn't be putting his money into a race track if it wasn't viable. Don't place too much reliance on the intellectual foundations of Boris's decision. Boris is a lovely man I'm sure and it is great to see the Greens supporting him when it suits them for opportunistic reasons, but did nobody tell you that the mayor's decision was flawed? if you had been at the meeting this afternoon you would have learned about that. You would also have realised that this is a not an unpopular cause. By the way, do you have any comments on the Green Party's loony attempts to ban foreign Christmas traditions like yule logs in Brighton? What a great use of taxpayer funded council time and resources that is.

[quote][p][bold]Mark Dawes[/bold] wrote:
Those lobbying for the return of dog racing are not facing reality. The Mayor’s report says that both his office and the GLA assessment of a return of dog racing found that it was not viable. As did a previous assessment that said a dog track was ““not financially viable (by a significant margin).”
It is also worth saying that of the 2380 representations to the GLA on the scheme, 1990 were opposed to the dog track reopening because of animal welfare concerns.
Not viable and unpopular, it is time to move on and consign this cruel “sport” to history.[/p][/quote]As Waltham points out, racing on the site is still potentially viable. That is not really in dispute by most people. The alternative Morton plan also makes the viability issue clear as renewing racing is an integral element of it. He wouldn't be putting his money into a race track if it wasn't viable.
Don't place too much reliance on the intellectual foundations of Boris's decision. Boris is a lovely man I'm sure and it is great to see the Greens supporting him when it suits them for opportunistic reasons, but did nobody tell you that the mayor's decision was flawed? if you had been at the meeting this afternoon you would have learned about that. You would also have realised that this is a not an unpopular cause.
By the way, do you have any comments on the Green Party's loony attempts to ban foreign Christmas traditions like yule logs in Brighton? What a great use of taxpayer funded council time and resources that is.Techno3

Mark Dawes wrote…

Those lobbying for the return of dog racing are not facing reality. The Mayor’s report says that both his office and the GLA assessment of a return of dog racing found that it was not viable. As did a previous assessment that said a dog track was ““not financially viable (by a significant margin).” It is also worth saying that of the 2380 representations to the GLA on the scheme, 1990 were opposed to the dog track reopening because of animal welfare concerns. Not viable and unpopular, it is time to move on and consign this cruel “sport” to history.

As Waltham points out, racing on the site is still potentially viable. That is not really in dispute by most people. The alternative Morton plan also makes the viability issue clear as renewing racing is an integral element of it. He wouldn't be putting his money into a race track if it wasn't viable. Don't place too much reliance on the intellectual foundations of Boris's decision. Boris is a lovely man I'm sure and it is great to see the Greens supporting him when it suits them for opportunistic reasons, but did nobody tell you that the mayor's decision was flawed? if you had been at the meeting this afternoon you would have learned about that. You would also have realised that this is a not an unpopular cause. By the way, do you have any comments on the Green Party's loony attempts to ban foreign Christmas traditions like yule logs in Brighton? What a great use of taxpayer funded council time and resources that is.

Score: 0

Greytexploitations says...10:47pm Sat 10 Nov 12

E17_er wrote…

Greytexploitations wrote…

Lets be absolutely clear on this - if dog racing returns to the site - there will never be any houses built alongside. A fact I'm sure the Residents Association are well aware of. The dog track/housing mix is NOT compatible or viable. There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households. According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim. Islam considers gambling to be harmful and destructive to society and ptohibited. Stella Creasy has continually ignored requests to confirm or deny whether she has consulted at least a fifth of her constituents - Muslim - on this issue and also refuses to be drawn on welfare concerns. WHY?

Lets be clear. You are a single issue commenter who has to find out information about the area via google.

Quite the opposite - we held an awareness event at the front of the dog track and spoke to 300 plus local residents. Only two of which wanted the dog track to reopen. http://greytexploita tions.com/resources- and-reports/say-no-t o-the-stow/greyhound -awareness-rally-fab ulous-success

[quote][p][bold]E17_er[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Greytexploitations[/bold] wrote:
Lets be absolutely clear on this - if dog racing returns to the site - there will never be any houses built alongside. A fact I'm sure the Residents Association are well aware of.
The dog track/housing mix is NOT compatible or viable.
There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households.
According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim.
Islam considers gambling to be harmful and destructive to society and ptohibited.
Stella Creasy has continually ignored requests to confirm or deny whether she has consulted at least a fifth of her constituents - Muslim - on this issue and also refuses to be drawn on welfare concerns.
WHY?[/p][/quote]Lets be clear. You are a single issue commenter who has to find out information about the area via google.[/p][/quote]Quite the opposite - we held an awareness event at the front of the dog track and spoke to 300 plus local residents.
Only two of which wanted the dog track to reopen.
http://greytexploita
tions.com/resources-
and-reports/say-no-t
o-the-stow/greyhound
-awareness-rally-fab
ulous-successGreytexploitations

E17_er wrote…

Greytexploitations wrote…

Lets be absolutely clear on this - if dog racing returns to the site - there will never be any houses built alongside. A fact I'm sure the Residents Association are well aware of. The dog track/housing mix is NOT compatible or viable. There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households. According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim. Islam considers gambling to be harmful and destructive to society and ptohibited. Stella Creasy has continually ignored requests to confirm or deny whether she has consulted at least a fifth of her constituents - Muslim - on this issue and also refuses to be drawn on welfare concerns. WHY?

Lets be clear. You are a single issue commenter who has to find out information about the area via google.

Quite the opposite - we held an awareness event at the front of the dog track and spoke to 300 plus local residents. Only two of which wanted the dog track to reopen. http://greytexploita tions.com/resources- and-reports/say-no-t o-the-stow/greyhound -awareness-rally-fab ulous-success

Score: 0

Greytexploitations says...10:59pm Sat 10 Nov 12

Techno3 wrote…

Greytexploitations wrote…

Lets be absolutely clear on this - if dog racing returns to the site - there will never be any houses built alongside. A fact I'm sure the Residents Association are well aware of. The dog track/housing mix is NOT compatible or viable. There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households. According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim. Islam considers gambling to be harmful and destructive to society and ptohibited. Stella Creasy has continually ignored requests to confirm or deny whether she has consulted at least a fifth of her constituents - Muslim - on this issue and also refuses to be drawn on welfare concerns. WHY?

I can't speak for Stella Creasy, in fact, I am known locally for regularly speaking against her, but if I were her I would also ignore your impertinant questions and demands. You do not live in her constituency. You don't even live in this country. You do not know about or care about local muslims, any more than you know about or care about anyone else who lives in this area. You only care about your misguided campaign to exagerrate a problem about dog welfare which will not exist when the dogtrack re-opens because plans are in place to deal with it. Your solution to the issue is disproportionate and ill-conceived. Your methods to propose your solution is socially destructive and undemocratic. They include telling lies and sticking your nose in the affairs of people you have never met and do not understand.

I dont even live in this country - where do you suppose I live? On the contrary - our 'misguided campaign' raised other issues aside of dog welfare. Regardless you cannot possibly exaggerate the fact that dog racing depends on inherent cruel practices for its viability. The mass destruction of dogs in order to maintain profits and the racing of dogs on dangerously configured tracks in order to supply a betting product for the gambling industry.

[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Greytexploitations[/bold] wrote:
Lets be absolutely clear on this - if dog racing returns to the site - there will never be any houses built alongside. A fact I'm sure the Residents Association are well aware of.
The dog track/housing mix is NOT compatible or viable.
There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households.
According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim.
Islam considers gambling to be harmful and destructive to society and ptohibited.
Stella Creasy has continually ignored requests to confirm or deny whether she has consulted at least a fifth of her constituents - Muslim - on this issue and also refuses to be drawn on welfare concerns.
WHY?[/p][/quote]I can't speak for Stella Creasy, in fact, I am known locally for regularly speaking against her, but if I were her I would also ignore your impertinant questions and demands.
You do not live in her constituency. You don't even live in this country. You do not know about or care about local muslims, any more than you know about or care about anyone else who lives in this area.
You only care about your misguided campaign to exagerrate a problem about dog welfare which will not exist when the dogtrack re-opens because plans are in place to deal with it.
Your solution to the issue is disproportionate and ill-conceived. Your methods to propose your solution is socially destructive and undemocratic. They include telling lies and sticking your nose in the affairs of people you have never met and do not understand.[/p][/quote]I dont even live in this country - where do you suppose I live?
On the contrary - our 'misguided campaign' raised other issues aside of dog welfare.
Regardless you cannot possibly exaggerate the fact that dog racing depends on inherent cruel practices for its viability.
The mass destruction of dogs in order to maintain profits and the racing of dogs on dangerously configured tracks in order to supply a betting product for the gambling industry.Greytexploitations

Techno3 wrote…

Greytexploitations wrote…

Lets be absolutely clear on this - if dog racing returns to the site - there will never be any houses built alongside. A fact I'm sure the Residents Association are well aware of. The dog track/housing mix is NOT compatible or viable. There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households. According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim. Islam considers gambling to be harmful and destructive to society and ptohibited. Stella Creasy has continually ignored requests to confirm or deny whether she has consulted at least a fifth of her constituents - Muslim - on this issue and also refuses to be drawn on welfare concerns. WHY?

I can't speak for Stella Creasy, in fact, I am known locally for regularly speaking against her, but if I were her I would also ignore your impertinant questions and demands. You do not live in her constituency. You don't even live in this country. You do not know about or care about local muslims, any more than you know about or care about anyone else who lives in this area. You only care about your misguided campaign to exagerrate a problem about dog welfare which will not exist when the dogtrack re-opens because plans are in place to deal with it. Your solution to the issue is disproportionate and ill-conceived. Your methods to propose your solution is socially destructive and undemocratic. They include telling lies and sticking your nose in the affairs of people you have never met and do not understand.

I dont even live in this country - where do you suppose I live? On the contrary - our 'misguided campaign' raised other issues aside of dog welfare. Regardless you cannot possibly exaggerate the fact that dog racing depends on inherent cruel practices for its viability. The mass destruction of dogs in order to maintain profits and the racing of dogs on dangerously configured tracks in order to supply a betting product for the gambling industry.

Score: 0

bishbosh says...11:16pm Sat 10 Nov 12

Does greytex remember dismissing the fact that 20,000 people signed a petition wanting to save the Stow on the basis it was a nationwide survey. This being delivered years ago to WF by IDS and campaigners. Greytex could only muster 1250 on a worldwide e campaign against a return of the Stow. The vast majority do not live in this country. Enough said and by the way Cornbeefur you are officially a provocative idiot.

Does greytex remember dismissing the fact that 20,000 people signed a petition wanting to save the Stow on the basis it was a nationwide survey. This being delivered years ago to WF by IDS and campaigners. Greytex could only muster 1250 on a worldwide e campaign against a return of the Stow. The vast majority do not live in this country. Enough said and by the way Cornbeefur you are officially a provocative idiot.bishbosh

Does greytex remember dismissing the fact that 20,000 people signed a petition wanting to save the Stow on the basis it was a nationwide survey. This being delivered years ago to WF by IDS and campaigners. Greytex could only muster 1250 on a worldwide e campaign against a return of the Stow. The vast majority do not live in this country. Enough said and by the way Cornbeefur you are officially a provocative idiot.

Score: 0

sensibility says...12:15am Sun 11 Nov 12

There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households but LBWF didnt consult many households and the consultation was done in the school summer holidays. According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim. AND Walthamstow Stadium is in CHINGFORD. Yes I am a NIMBY but I wouldnt have been if they had put in sensible plans with housing of similar height to those in the roads surrounding the stadium. For me and I know of other local residents with the same view, its not about returning it to what it was its about local residents views and concerns not being listened to, its about being too high and too dense and an inappropriate build for the area. I fully support further action being taken.

There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households but LBWF didnt consult many households and the consultation was done in the school summer holidays.
According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim. AND Walthamstow Stadium is in CHINGFORD.
Yes I am a NIMBY but I wouldnt have been if they had put in sensible plans with housing of similar height to those in the roads surrounding the stadium.
For me and I know of other local residents with the same view, its not about returning it to what it was its about local residents views and concerns not being listened to, its about being too high and too dense and an inappropriate build for the area.
I fully support further action being taken.sensibility

There were only 210 local residents who opposed L&Q's plans during the public consultation phase and those residents represented just 107 households but LBWF didnt consult many households and the consultation was done in the school summer holidays. According to the 2001 National Census - 18% of the Walthamstow population are Muslim. AND Walthamstow Stadium is in CHINGFORD. Yes I am a NIMBY but I wouldnt have been if they had put in sensible plans with housing of similar height to those in the roads surrounding the stadium. For me and I know of other local residents with the same view, its not about returning it to what it was its about local residents views and concerns not being listened to, its about being too high and too dense and an inappropriate build for the area. I fully support further action being taken.

Score: 0

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY says...8:24am Sun 11 Nov 12

I'll keep this nice and simple for the usual suspects. IF dog racing at the stow is not viable (in other words, loses money).... THEY WHY HAVE FRANK TAYLOR AND BOB MORTON BID L&Q 16MILLION POUNDS FOR THE SITE? Sorry to shout, but I'm getting sick of reading the same nonsense and misinformation from people who really should know better.

I'll keep this nice and simple for the usual suspects.
IF dog racing at the stow is not viable (in other words, loses money)....
THEY WHY HAVE FRANK TAYLOR AND BOB MORTON BID L&Q 16MILLION POUNDS FOR THE SITE?
Sorry to shout, but I'm getting sick of reading the same nonsense and misinformation from people who really should know better.L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY

I'll keep this nice and simple for the usual suspects. IF dog racing at the stow is not viable (in other words, loses money).... THEY WHY HAVE FRANK TAYLOR AND BOB MORTON BID L&Q 16MILLION POUNDS FOR THE SITE? Sorry to shout, but I'm getting sick of reading the same nonsense and misinformation from people who really should know better.

Score: 0

Cornbeefur says...9:08am Sun 11 Nov 12

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY wrote…

I'll keep this nice and simple for the usual suspects. IF dog racing at the stow is not viable (in other words, loses money).... THEY WHY HAVE FRANK TAYLOR AND BOB MORTON BID L&Q 16MILLION POUNDS FOR THE SITE? Sorry to shout, but I'm getting sick of reading the same nonsense and misinformation from people who really should know better.

Typing in Capital Letters does not convey your message any better, there must be a reason for such an offer to be refused, either onerous conditions attached or they are not credible people to deal with.

[quote][p][bold]L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY[/bold] wrote:
I'll keep this nice and simple for the usual suspects.
IF dog racing at the stow is not viable (in other words, loses money)....
THEY WHY HAVE FRANK TAYLOR AND BOB MORTON BID L&Q 16MILLION POUNDS FOR THE SITE?
Sorry to shout, but I'm getting sick of reading the same nonsense and misinformation from people who really should know better.[/p][/quote]Typing in Capital Letters does not convey your message any better, there must be a reason for such an offer to be refused, either onerous conditions attached or they are not credible people to deal with.Cornbeefur

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY wrote…

I'll keep this nice and simple for the usual suspects. IF dog racing at the stow is not viable (in other words, loses money).... THEY WHY HAVE FRANK TAYLOR AND BOB MORTON BID L&Q 16MILLION POUNDS FOR THE SITE? Sorry to shout, but I'm getting sick of reading the same nonsense and misinformation from people who really should know better.

Typing in Capital Letters does not convey your message any better, there must be a reason for such an offer to be refused, either onerous conditions attached or they are not credible people to deal with.

Score: 0

E17_er says...10:00am Sun 11 Nov 12

Cornbeefur wrote…

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY wrote…

I'll keep this nice and simple for the usual suspects. IF dog racing at the stow is not viable (in other words, loses money).... THEY WHY HAVE FRANK TAYLOR AND BOB MORTON BID L&Q 16MILLION POUNDS FOR THE SITE? Sorry to shout, but I'm getting sick of reading the same nonsense and misinformation from people who really should know better.

Typing in Capital Letters does not convey your message any better, there must be a reason for such an offer to be refused, either onerous conditions attached or they are not credible people to deal with.

Maybe you should try it Cornbeefur. Your statements don't manage to convey any useful information in their current format. Anything is worth a try.

[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY[/bold] wrote:
I'll keep this nice and simple for the usual suspects.
IF dog racing at the stow is not viable (in other words, loses money)....
THEY WHY HAVE FRANK TAYLOR AND BOB MORTON BID L&Q 16MILLION POUNDS FOR THE SITE?
Sorry to shout, but I'm getting sick of reading the same nonsense and misinformation from people who really should know better.[/p][/quote]Typing in Capital Letters does not convey your message any better, there must be a reason for such an offer to be refused, either onerous conditions attached or they are not credible people to deal with.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should try it Cornbeefur. Your statements don't manage to convey any useful information in their current format. Anything is worth a try.E17_er

Cornbeefur wrote…

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY wrote…

I'll keep this nice and simple for the usual suspects. IF dog racing at the stow is not viable (in other words, loses money).... THEY WHY HAVE FRANK TAYLOR AND BOB MORTON BID L&Q 16MILLION POUNDS FOR THE SITE? Sorry to shout, but I'm getting sick of reading the same nonsense and misinformation from people who really should know better.

Typing in Capital Letters does not convey your message any better, there must be a reason for such an offer to be refused, either onerous conditions attached or they are not credible people to deal with.

Maybe you should try it Cornbeefur. Your statements don't manage to convey any useful information in their current format. Anything is worth a try.

Score: 0

Greytexploitations says...10:33am Sun 11 Nov 12

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY wrote…

I'll keep this nice and simple for the usual suspects. IF dog racing at the stow is not viable (in other words, loses money).... THEY WHY HAVE FRANK TAYLOR AND BOB MORTON BID L&Q 16MILLION POUNDS FOR THE SITE? Sorry to shout, but I'm getting sick of reading the same nonsense and misinformation from people who really should know better.

If dog racing at Walthamstow is that much of a money spinner - why dont Taylor and Morton make a serious bid to L&Q? Regardless of the finances - and I'll keep this nice and simple - a dog track in such close proximity to private housing is not viable. The GBGB most certainly would not licence the track where betting integrity could not be enforced and the council would not approve planning where obvious environmental issues would be present – such as noise pollution.

[quote][p][bold]L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY[/bold] wrote:
I'll keep this nice and simple for the usual suspects.
IF dog racing at the stow is not viable (in other words, loses money)....
THEY WHY HAVE FRANK TAYLOR AND BOB MORTON BID L&Q 16MILLION POUNDS FOR THE SITE?
Sorry to shout, but I'm getting sick of reading the same nonsense and misinformation from people who really should know better.[/p][/quote]If dog racing at Walthamstow is that much of a money spinner - why dont Taylor and Morton make a serious bid to L&Q?
Regardless of the finances - and I'll keep this nice and simple - a dog track in such close proximity to private housing is not viable.
The GBGB most certainly would not licence the track where betting integrity could not be enforced and the council would not approve planning where obvious environmental issues would be present – such as noise pollution.Greytexploitations

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY wrote…

I'll keep this nice and simple for the usual suspects. IF dog racing at the stow is not viable (in other words, loses money).... THEY WHY HAVE FRANK TAYLOR AND BOB MORTON BID L&Q 16MILLION POUNDS FOR THE SITE? Sorry to shout, but I'm getting sick of reading the same nonsense and misinformation from people who really should know better.

If dog racing at Walthamstow is that much of a money spinner - why dont Taylor and Morton make a serious bid to L&Q? Regardless of the finances - and I'll keep this nice and simple - a dog track in such close proximity to private housing is not viable. The GBGB most certainly would not licence the track where betting integrity could not be enforced and the council would not approve planning where obvious environmental issues would be present – such as noise pollution.

Score: 0

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY says...1:24pm Sun 11 Nov 12

Make a serious bid???? Ok, I'll try again. Please bear in mind that the site is now valued, independently, at 7million pound (still around just under 1m an acre). What would u consider a 'serious'offer? The boys have bid 16m for a site l&q purchased for 18m at the height of the property boom. That was 18m on the basis that planning was 'guaranteed' by the council. Pye, rollings and the rest of the filth, 'encouraged' l&q that it would all be ok. Well it wasn't and, nearly 5 years down the line, here we are. If u think that wfbc have behaved is correctly, then u seriously need to seek help. This is no longer about a dog track - this is about a council treating its constituents and democracy with complete contempt.

Make a serious bid????
Ok, I'll try again. Please bear in mind that the site is now valued, independently, at 7million pound (still around just under 1m an acre). What would u consider a 'serious'offer?
The boys have bid 16m for a site l&q purchased for 18m at the height of the property boom. That was 18m on the basis that planning was 'guaranteed' by the council. Pye, rollings and the rest of the filth, 'encouraged' l&q that it would all be ok.
Well it wasn't and, nearly 5 years down the line, here we are.
If u think that wfbc have behaved is correctly, then u seriously need to seek help.
This is no longer about a dog track - this is about a council treating its constituents and democracy with complete contempt.L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY

Make a serious bid???? Ok, I'll try again. Please bear in mind that the site is now valued, independently, at 7million pound (still around just under 1m an acre). What would u consider a 'serious'offer? The boys have bid 16m for a site l&q purchased for 18m at the height of the property boom. That was 18m on the basis that planning was 'guaranteed' by the council. Pye, rollings and the rest of the filth, 'encouraged' l&q that it would all be ok. Well it wasn't and, nearly 5 years down the line, here we are. If u think that wfbc have behaved is correctly, then u seriously need to seek help. This is no longer about a dog track - this is about a council treating its constituents and democracy with complete contempt.

Score: 0

mdj says...1:28pm Sun 11 Nov 12

It's a shame that Mark Dawes and Greytexploitations missed an excellent chance yesterday to put local people right about this issue. I'm sure they'd have been allowed their turn with the megaphone. If Greatex.. visits Leyton Orient, he/she will find a lot of new housing packed in - rather incongruously, in my view - next to a noisy sporting venue, so there seems to be no planning issue over this. I attended, not because I'm a fan of dog racing, but because this is a bigger issue of democracy and local prosperity. The Council is deliberately building unemployment into the borough by replacing workplaces with low-grade housing. People with the money to buy their own home will not choose to buy in an over-developed estate like the one proposed here, even if they live there already. It's therefore entirely predictable that the development will go into a downward spiral. I've long since concluded that this suits the electoral purposes of the Labour Party in this borough, with no regard for the welfare of the inhabitants, or the coherence of communities.The party that once served the poor , now farms them for profit: literally in the case of those Labour councillors who are also commercial landlords.

It's a shame that Mark Dawes and Greytexploitations missed an excellent chance yesterday to put local people right about this issue. I'm sure they'd have been allowed their turn with the megaphone.
If Greatex.. visits Leyton Orient, he/she will find a lot of new housing packed in - rather incongruously, in my view - next to a noisy sporting venue, so there seems to be no planning issue over this.
I attended, not because I'm a fan of dog racing, but because this is a bigger issue of democracy and local prosperity. The Council is deliberately building unemployment into the borough by replacing workplaces with low-grade housing. People with the money to buy their own home will not choose to buy in an over-developed estate like the one proposed here, even if they live there already. It's therefore entirely predictable that the development will go into a downward spiral. I've long since concluded that this suits the electoral purposes of the Labour Party in this borough, with no regard for the welfare of the inhabitants, or the coherence of communities.The party that once served the poor , now farms them for profit: literally in the case of those Labour councillors who are also commercial landlords.mdj

It's a shame that Mark Dawes and Greytexploitations missed an excellent chance yesterday to put local people right about this issue. I'm sure they'd have been allowed their turn with the megaphone. If Greatex.. visits Leyton Orient, he/she will find a lot of new housing packed in - rather incongruously, in my view - next to a noisy sporting venue, so there seems to be no planning issue over this. I attended, not because I'm a fan of dog racing, but because this is a bigger issue of democracy and local prosperity. The Council is deliberately building unemployment into the borough by replacing workplaces with low-grade housing. People with the money to buy their own home will not choose to buy in an over-developed estate like the one proposed here, even if they live there already. It's therefore entirely predictable that the development will go into a downward spiral. I've long since concluded that this suits the electoral purposes of the Labour Party in this borough, with no regard for the welfare of the inhabitants, or the coherence of communities.The party that once served the poor , now farms them for profit: literally in the case of those Labour councillors who are also commercial landlords.

Score: 0

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY says...1:30pm Sun 11 Nov 12

In answer to your other 2 completely incorrect points. 1. Why would a stadium near private housing not be viable (bearing in mind it's been a gold mine for the previous 75 years). 2. The gbgb have already supported the return of the sport to the stow in a letter approving the Morton/Taylor bid to the mayors office. (Yet another example of boris proving he is not fit to run a bath - let alone the capital of England). Now, please come back with some kind of sensible and Constructive criticism.

In answer to your other 2 completely incorrect points.
1. Why would a stadium near private housing not be viable (bearing in mind it's been a gold mine for the previous 75 years).
2. The gbgb have already supported the return of the sport to the stow in a letter approving the Morton/Taylor bid to the mayors office. (Yet another example of boris proving he is not fit to run a bath - let alone the capital of England).
Now, please come back with some kind of sensible and Constructive criticism.L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY

In answer to your other 2 completely incorrect points. 1. Why would a stadium near private housing not be viable (bearing in mind it's been a gold mine for the previous 75 years). 2. The gbgb have already supported the return of the sport to the stow in a letter approving the Morton/Taylor bid to the mayors office. (Yet another example of boris proving he is not fit to run a bath - let alone the capital of England). Now, please come back with some kind of sensible and Constructive criticism.

Score: 0

Cornbeefur says...1:44pm Sun 11 Nov 12

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY wrote…

In answer to your other 2 completely incorrect points. 1. Why would a stadium near private housing not be viable (bearing in mind it's been a gold mine for the previous 75 years). 2. The gbgb have already supported the return of the sport to the stow in a letter approving the Morton/Taylor bid to the mayors office. (Yet another example of boris proving he is not fit to run a bath - let alone the capital of England). Now, please come back with some kind of sensible and Constructive criticism.

In answer 1. It will not happen, there will never be another Dog Track in Walthamstow ever. 2. Er.......thats it.

[quote][p][bold]L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY[/bold] wrote:
In answer to your other 2 completely incorrect points.
1. Why would a stadium near private housing not be viable (bearing in mind it's been a gold mine for the previous 75 years).
2. The gbgb have already supported the return of the sport to the stow in a letter approving the Morton/Taylor bid to the mayors office. (Yet another example of boris proving he is not fit to run a bath - let alone the capital of England).
Now, please come back with some kind of sensible and Constructive criticism.[/p][/quote]In answer
1. It will not happen, there will never be another Dog Track in Walthamstow ever.
2. Er.......thats it.Cornbeefur

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY wrote…

In answer to your other 2 completely incorrect points. 1. Why would a stadium near private housing not be viable (bearing in mind it's been a gold mine for the previous 75 years). 2. The gbgb have already supported the return of the sport to the stow in a letter approving the Morton/Taylor bid to the mayors office. (Yet another example of boris proving he is not fit to run a bath - let alone the capital of England). Now, please come back with some kind of sensible and Constructive criticism.

In answer 1. It will not happen, there will never be another Dog Track in Walthamstow ever. 2. Er.......thats it.

Score: 0

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY says...2:02pm Sun 11 Nov 12

Well that didn't answer either of my questions. Thanks. And the reason that Dawes or the greytunwashed never showed, is because they have no real argument. The Green Party bloke has already shown himself to be totally unaware of the facts and us for the swampys... Well, they only ever showed up at dog tracks in the warm weather. Demonstrating at dog tracks is a summer sport!

Well that didn't answer either of my questions. Thanks.
And the reason that Dawes or the greytunwashed never showed, is because they have no real argument. The Green Party bloke has already shown himself to be totally unaware of the facts and us for the swampys...
Well, they only ever showed up at dog tracks in the warm weather. Demonstrating at dog tracks is a summer sport!L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY

Well that didn't answer either of my questions. Thanks. And the reason that Dawes or the greytunwashed never showed, is because they have no real argument. The Green Party bloke has already shown himself to be totally unaware of the facts and us for the swampys... Well, they only ever showed up at dog tracks in the warm weather. Demonstrating at dog tracks is a summer sport!

Score: 0

Mark Dawes says...6:03pm Sun 11 Nov 12

waltham wrote…

mark dawes you do a total disservice to the green party .You never learn you have already been told by the greens not to put out rubbish before and you were force to withdraw leaflets. once again your facts are wrong 1.paul clark government inspector stated L&Q had not proven greyhound racing was not viable -FACT 2.GLA had no reportinto greyhound racing done - FACT Before putting out rubbish - go tree hugging first 3. the number of antis were mainly from the usa and abroad because you put up petitions on line again without knowing the facts !!!! no wonder nobody takes the greens serious - except for obsessions By the way this is not over yet so your nutty vision of greyhound racing can continue in your mad world but its not reality Sorry

You may not agree with the Green Party but I have always been fully backed by the Green Party – local and national – on this issue. You say that the taxpayer would pick up any losses of the scheme but this is not true as it would come out of L&Q reserves. There are wider issues about Government policy on housing and housing associations but that is beyond the planning issues involved in this scheme. Paragraph 78 of the Mayor’s report refers to the GLA assessment finding the dog track not viable. It is worth noting for those claiming a dog track is viable that the Mayor Boris Johnson – featured on the Save our Stow website as a supporter of the dog track - said it is not viable and that a dog track would not be popular. I do not know where the people who made representations were from but both Save our Stow and Stella Creasy were encouraging people from outside the area to write to the Mayor. The vast majority opposed the return of dog racing and that would include people in the area too. The fact is dog racing is a cruel industry. The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW) suggested that thousands of greyhound puppies are culled that do not make the grade racing. Dogs are regularly injured whilst racing and sometimes killed as a result. And there is the issue of the retired dogs increasing the number of dogs needing rehoming at a time when dogs are being put down for lack of a good home. Some people may think animal suffering is a price worth paying for their enjoyment – as did people fox hunting – but I would strongly disagree which is why I – and others – oppose the return of dog racing.

[quote][p][bold]waltham[/bold] wrote:
mark dawes you do a total disservice to the green party .You never learn you have already been told by the greens not to put out rubbish before and you were force to withdraw leaflets.
once again your facts are wrong
1.paul clark government inspector stated L&Q had not proven greyhound racing was not viable -FACT
2.GLA had no reportinto greyhound racing done - FACT
Before putting out rubbish - go tree hugging first
3. the number of antis were mainly from the usa and abroad because you put up petitions on line again without knowing the facts !!!!
no wonder nobody takes the greens serious - except for obsessions
By the way this is not over yet so your nutty vision of greyhound racing can continue in your mad world but its not reality Sorry[/p][/quote]You may not agree with the Green Party but I have always been fully backed by the Green Party – local and national – on this issue.
You say that the taxpayer would pick up any losses of the scheme but this is not true as it would come out of L&Q reserves. There are wider issues about Government policy on housing and housing associations but that is beyond the planning issues involved in this scheme.
Paragraph 78 of the Mayor’s report refers to the GLA assessment finding the dog track not viable. It is worth noting for those claiming a dog track is viable that the Mayor Boris Johnson – featured on the Save our Stow website as a supporter of the dog track - said it is not viable and that a dog track would not be popular.
I do not know where the people who made representations were from but both Save our Stow and Stella Creasy were encouraging people from outside the area to write to the Mayor. The vast majority opposed the return of dog racing and that would include people in the area too.
The fact is dog racing is a cruel industry. The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW) suggested that thousands of greyhound puppies are culled that do not make the grade racing. Dogs are regularly injured whilst racing and sometimes killed as a result. And there is the issue of the retired dogs increasing the number of dogs needing rehoming at a time when dogs are being put down for lack of a good home.
Some people may think animal suffering is a price worth paying for their enjoyment – as did people fox hunting – but I would strongly disagree which is why I – and others – oppose the return of dog racing.Mark Dawes

waltham wrote…

mark dawes you do a total disservice to the green party .You never learn you have already been told by the greens not to put out rubbish before and you were force to withdraw leaflets. once again your facts are wrong 1.paul clark government inspector stated L&Q had not proven greyhound racing was not viable -FACT 2.GLA had no reportinto greyhound racing done - FACT Before putting out rubbish - go tree hugging first 3. the number of antis were mainly from the usa and abroad because you put up petitions on line again without knowing the facts !!!! no wonder nobody takes the greens serious - except for obsessions By the way this is not over yet so your nutty vision of greyhound racing can continue in your mad world but its not reality Sorry

You may not agree with the Green Party but I have always been fully backed by the Green Party – local and national – on this issue. You say that the taxpayer would pick up any losses of the scheme but this is not true as it would come out of L&Q reserves. There are wider issues about Government policy on housing and housing associations but that is beyond the planning issues involved in this scheme. Paragraph 78 of the Mayor’s report refers to the GLA assessment finding the dog track not viable. It is worth noting for those claiming a dog track is viable that the Mayor Boris Johnson – featured on the Save our Stow website as a supporter of the dog track - said it is not viable and that a dog track would not be popular. I do not know where the people who made representations were from but both Save our Stow and Stella Creasy were encouraging people from outside the area to write to the Mayor. The vast majority opposed the return of dog racing and that would include people in the area too. The fact is dog racing is a cruel industry. The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW) suggested that thousands of greyhound puppies are culled that do not make the grade racing. Dogs are regularly injured whilst racing and sometimes killed as a result. And there is the issue of the retired dogs increasing the number of dogs needing rehoming at a time when dogs are being put down for lack of a good home. Some people may think animal suffering is a price worth paying for their enjoyment – as did people fox hunting – but I would strongly disagree which is why I – and others – oppose the return of dog racing.

Score: 0

mdj says...6:26pm Sun 11 Nov 12

Mark, how does closing a place that employed several hundred people ,and replacing it with shoddy housing, fit in with Green Party policy? LBWF on its own account is the borough with the highest percentage of residents who have to have to travel outside its boundaries to go to work. The Stow's only transport links are by road, so the incomers will have to commute by vehicle, or draw benefits: not very Green, not very local! The Green Party must have a policy on population too, and thereby by implication one on immigration; how does it tie in with drawing more people into an area where work opportunities are deliberately being reduced by the Council? As someone broadly in agreement with the Green agenda, I don't think this is an issue where you should be nailing the party's colours to the mast.

Mark, how does closing a place that employed several hundred people ,and replacing it with shoddy housing, fit in with Green Party policy? LBWF on its own account is the borough with the highest percentage of residents who have to have to travel outside its boundaries to go to work. The Stow's only transport links are by road, so the incomers will have to commute by vehicle, or draw benefits: not very Green, not very local!
The Green Party must have a policy on population too, and thereby by implication one on immigration; how does it tie in with drawing more people into an area where work opportunities are deliberately being reduced by the Council?
As someone broadly in agreement with the Green agenda, I don't think this is an issue where you should be nailing the party's colours to the mast.mdj

Mark, how does closing a place that employed several hundred people ,and replacing it with shoddy housing, fit in with Green Party policy? LBWF on its own account is the borough with the highest percentage of residents who have to have to travel outside its boundaries to go to work. The Stow's only transport links are by road, so the incomers will have to commute by vehicle, or draw benefits: not very Green, not very local! The Green Party must have a policy on population too, and thereby by implication one on immigration; how does it tie in with drawing more people into an area where work opportunities are deliberately being reduced by the Council? As someone broadly in agreement with the Green agenda, I don't think this is an issue where you should be nailing the party's colours to the mast.

Score: 0

Cornbeefur says...8:29pm Sun 11 Nov 12

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY wrote…

Well that didn't answer either of my questions. Thanks. And the reason that Dawes or the greytunwashed never showed, is because they have no real argument. The Green Party bloke has already shown himself to be totally unaware of the facts and us for the swampys... Well, they only ever showed up at dog tracks in the warm weather. Demonstrating at dog tracks is a summer sport!

'Greytunwashed' Won the 'Isaythisthatanyoldt osh Cup' at 7.14 at Walthamstow in 1967. The poor dog went all over the place like it's namesake.

[quote][p][bold]L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY[/bold] wrote:
Well that didn't answer either of my questions. Thanks.
And the reason that Dawes or the greytunwashed never showed, is because they have no real argument. The Green Party bloke has already shown himself to be totally unaware of the facts and us for the swampys...
Well, they only ever showed up at dog tracks in the warm weather. Demonstrating at dog tracks is a summer sport![/p][/quote]'Greytunwashed' Won the 'Isaythisthatanyoldt
osh Cup' at 7.14 at Walthamstow in 1967.
The poor dog went all over the place like it's namesake.Cornbeefur

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY wrote…

Well that didn't answer either of my questions. Thanks. And the reason that Dawes or the greytunwashed never showed, is because they have no real argument. The Green Party bloke has already shown himself to be totally unaware of the facts and us for the swampys... Well, they only ever showed up at dog tracks in the warm weather. Demonstrating at dog tracks is a summer sport!

'Greytunwashed' Won the 'Isaythisthatanyoldt osh Cup' at 7.14 at Walthamstow in 1967. The poor dog went all over the place like it's namesake.

Score: 0

Greytexploitations says...8:44pm Sun 11 Nov 12

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY wrote…

Make a serious bid???? Ok, I'll try again. Please bear in mind that the site is now valued, independently, at 7million pound (still around just under 1m an acre). What would u consider a 'serious'offer? The boys have bid 16m for a site l&q purchased for 18m at the height of the property boom. That was 18m on the basis that planning was 'guaranteed' by the council. Pye, rollings and the rest of the filth, 'encouraged' l&q that it would all be ok. Well it wasn't and, nearly 5 years down the line, here we are. If u think that wfbc have behaved is correctly, then u seriously need to seek help. This is no longer about a dog track - this is about a council treating its constituents and democracy with complete contempt.

A serious offer is obviously one the vendors would consider selling at - that's if L&Q want sell of course. The council held a public consultation and only 210 residents from 107 households opposed L&Q's plans. Clearly the democratic process has been followed.

[quote][p][bold]L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY[/bold] wrote:
Make a serious bid????
Ok, I'll try again. Please bear in mind that the site is now valued, independently, at 7million pound (still around just under 1m an acre). What would u consider a 'serious'offer?
The boys have bid 16m for a site l&q purchased for 18m at the height of the property boom. That was 18m on the basis that planning was 'guaranteed' by the council. Pye, rollings and the rest of the filth, 'encouraged' l&q that it would all be ok.
Well it wasn't and, nearly 5 years down the line, here we are.
If u think that wfbc have behaved is correctly, then u seriously need to seek help.
This is no longer about a dog track - this is about a council treating its constituents and democracy with complete contempt.[/p][/quote]A serious offer is obviously one the vendors would consider selling at - that's if L&Q want sell of course.
The council held a public consultation and only 210 residents from 107 households opposed L&Q's plans.
Clearly the democratic process has been followed.Greytexploitations

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY wrote…

Make a serious bid???? Ok, I'll try again. Please bear in mind that the site is now valued, independently, at 7million pound (still around just under 1m an acre). What would u consider a 'serious'offer? The boys have bid 16m for a site l&q purchased for 18m at the height of the property boom. That was 18m on the basis that planning was 'guaranteed' by the council. Pye, rollings and the rest of the filth, 'encouraged' l&q that it would all be ok. Well it wasn't and, nearly 5 years down the line, here we are. If u think that wfbc have behaved is correctly, then u seriously need to seek help. This is no longer about a dog track - this is about a council treating its constituents and democracy with complete contempt.

A serious offer is obviously one the vendors would consider selling at - that's if L&Q want sell of course. The council held a public consultation and only 210 residents from 107 households opposed L&Q's plans. Clearly the democratic process has been followed.

Score: 0

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY says...8:46pm Sun 11 Nov 12

Green Party bloke - para 78 of the mayors report says the dog track is not viable. And SOS say they have the mayors support for dog racing. So, the best u have is a flawed report - report which is, at best, cobbled together to support a rotten and council and crooked housing association. And the word of boris (words he uttered on the campaign trail, trying to get votes) is not worth a tanner. This is the man who told national news that the site, BY HIS CALCULATIONS, would not lose money (poor old boris neglected to add the original 18m into those Calcs - bless him!) That's it. And you're the opposition to the filth in charge???? U seriously cannot see how rotten and corrupt this whole situation is? U or your party cannot make political mileage out of this???? No wonder they have turned taking the pi55 into an art. U may not agree with the dogs - that's your opinion and who am I (especially on armistice day) to deny u that - but for gods sake, this council have treated its constituents with total contempt. Wfbc are taking the reputation of politicians to new depths - who would have thought it possible? THAT tells u how badly they have behaved.

Green Party bloke - para 78 of the mayors report says the dog track is not viable. And SOS say they have the mayors support for dog racing.
So, the best u have is a flawed report - report which is, at best, cobbled together to support a rotten and council and crooked housing association.
And the word of boris (words he uttered on the campaign trail, trying to get votes) is not worth a tanner. This is the man who told national news that the site, BY HIS CALCULATIONS, would not lose money (poor old boris neglected to add the original 18m into those Calcs - bless him!)
That's it. And you're the opposition to the filth in charge???? U seriously cannot see how rotten and corrupt this whole situation is? U or your party cannot make political mileage out of this???? No wonder they have turned taking the pi55 into an art.
U may not agree with the dogs - that's your opinion and who am I (especially on armistice day) to deny u that - but for gods sake, this council have treated its constituents with total contempt.
Wfbc are taking the reputation of politicians to new depths - who would have thought it possible?
THAT tells u how badly they have behaved.L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY

Green Party bloke - para 78 of the mayors report says the dog track is not viable. And SOS say they have the mayors support for dog racing. So, the best u have is a flawed report - report which is, at best, cobbled together to support a rotten and council and crooked housing association. And the word of boris (words he uttered on the campaign trail, trying to get votes) is not worth a tanner. This is the man who told national news that the site, BY HIS CALCULATIONS, would not lose money (poor old boris neglected to add the original 18m into those Calcs - bless him!) That's it. And you're the opposition to the filth in charge???? U seriously cannot see how rotten and corrupt this whole situation is? U or your party cannot make political mileage out of this???? No wonder they have turned taking the pi55 into an art. U may not agree with the dogs - that's your opinion and who am I (especially on armistice day) to deny u that - but for gods sake, this council have treated its constituents with total contempt. Wfbc are taking the reputation of politicians to new depths - who would have thought it possible? THAT tells u how badly they have behaved.

Score: 0

Greytexploitations says...8:50pm Sun 11 Nov 12

bishbosh wrote…

Does greytex remember dismissing the fact that 20,000 people signed a petition wanting to save the Stow on the basis it was a nationwide survey. This being delivered years ago to WF by IDS and campaigners. Greytex could only muster 1250 on a worldwide e campaign against a return of the Stow. The vast majority do not live in this country. Enough said and by the way Cornbeefur you are officially a provocative idiot.

[quote][p][bold]bishbosh[/bold] wrote:
Does greytex remember dismissing the fact that 20,000 people signed a petition wanting to save the Stow on the basis it was a nationwide survey. This being delivered years ago to WF by IDS and campaigners. Greytex could only muster 1250 on a worldwide e campaign against a return of the Stow. The vast majority do not live in this country. Enough said and by the way Cornbeefur you are officially a provocative idiot.[/p][/quote]Ah yes - the Save Our Stow 'roadshow' that lobbied every dog track seeking signatures.
Tut tut.......Greytexploitations

bishbosh wrote…

Does greytex remember dismissing the fact that 20,000 people signed a petition wanting to save the Stow on the basis it was a nationwide survey. This being delivered years ago to WF by IDS and campaigners. Greytex could only muster 1250 on a worldwide e campaign against a return of the Stow. The vast majority do not live in this country. Enough said and by the way Cornbeefur you are officially a provocative idiot.

Greytunwashed - where did u get those stats from? L&q or the council? Was this the same questionnaire they handed out which didn't even give dog racing as an option? As for a reasonable bid. What would u consider reasonable? The Morton-Taylor bid of 16m is double the sites appraised value. U should also bear in mind that it is illegal for l&q to land bank and, as the sites current owner, have a duty of care for the listed buildings they own.

Greytunwashed - where did u get those stats from? L&q or the council? Was this the same questionnaire they handed out which didn't even give dog racing as an option?
As for a reasonable bid. What would u consider reasonable?
The Morton-Taylor bid of 16m is double the sites appraised value. U should also bear in mind that it is illegal for l&q to land bank and, as the sites current owner, have a duty of care for the listed buildings they own.L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY

Greytunwashed - where did u get those stats from? L&q or the council? Was this the same questionnaire they handed out which didn't even give dog racing as an option? As for a reasonable bid. What would u consider reasonable? The Morton-Taylor bid of 16m is double the sites appraised value. U should also bear in mind that it is illegal for l&q to land bank and, as the sites current owner, have a duty of care for the listed buildings they own.

Score: 0

Cornbeefur says...10:39pm Sun 11 Nov 12

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY wrote…

Greytunwashed - where did u get those stats from? L&q or the council? Was this the same questionnaire they handed out which didn't even give dog racing as an option? As for a reasonable bid. What would u consider reasonable? The Morton-Taylor bid of 16m is double the sites appraised value. U should also bear in mind that it is illegal for l&q to land bank and, as the sites current owner, have a duty of care for the listed buildings they own.

The dogs who did not catch up with the toy hare, ate the ..... questionnaire!

[quote][p][bold]L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY[/bold] wrote:
Greytunwashed - where did u get those stats from? L&q or the council? Was this the same questionnaire they handed out which didn't even give dog racing as an option?
As for a reasonable bid. What would u consider reasonable?
The Morton-Taylor bid of 16m is double the sites appraised value. U should also bear in mind that it is illegal for l&q to land bank and, as the sites current owner, have a duty of care for the listed buildings they own.[/p][/quote]The dogs who did not catch up with the toy hare, ate the ..... questionnaire!Cornbeefur

L&Q - PLEASEGOAWAY wrote…

Greytunwashed - where did u get those stats from? L&q or the council? Was this the same questionnaire they handed out which didn't even give dog racing as an option? As for a reasonable bid. What would u consider reasonable? The Morton-Taylor bid of 16m is double the sites appraised value. U should also bear in mind that it is illegal for l&q to land bank and, as the sites current owner, have a duty of care for the listed buildings they own.

The dogs who did not catch up with the toy hare, ate the ..... questionnaire!

Score: 0

howard0181 says...11:56pm Sun 11 Nov 12

I was at the Town Hall Planning Hearing in May. Only own person from the public spoke in favour of the L & Q ghetto plan.

I was at the Town Hall Planning Hearing in May. Only own person from the public spoke in favour of the L & Q ghetto plan.howard0181

I was at the Town Hall Planning Hearing in May. Only own person from the public spoke in favour of the L & Q ghetto plan.

Score: 0

mdj says...12:50am Mon 12 Nov 12

'I was at the Town Hall Planning Hearing in May. Only one person from the public spoke in favour of the L & Q ghetto plan' Was that one person possibly Mr Gary Ince, listed in the agenda for that meeting as a member of the public, but in fact Chair of North London Business, a Council and L+Q-funded echo chamber, from which he pretended to resign over his strange business connections to do with the Leyton Market disaster? Some endorsement!

'I was at the Town Hall Planning Hearing in May. Only one person from the public spoke in favour of the L & Q ghetto plan'
Was that one person possibly Mr Gary Ince, listed in the agenda for that meeting as a member of the public, but in fact Chair of North London Business, a Council and L+Q-funded echo chamber, from which he pretended to resign over his strange business connections to do with the Leyton Market disaster?
Some endorsement!mdj

'I was at the Town Hall Planning Hearing in May. Only one person from the public spoke in favour of the L & Q ghetto plan' Was that one person possibly Mr Gary Ince, listed in the agenda for that meeting as a member of the public, but in fact Chair of North London Business, a Council and L+Q-funded echo chamber, from which he pretended to resign over his strange business connections to do with the Leyton Market disaster? Some endorsement!

Score: 0

bishbosh says...10:26am Tue 13 Nov 12

Serious question for anyone supporting what the council and L and Q want to do with this site. After reading the viability report attached to the planning application can you identify areas of this development that provide real value for money for the taxpayer and local economy?. Before considering this you are advised that the viability report was dated June 2011 and suggested that no S106 payments would be made to compensate the local community. Since then S106 payments of 3.8 million have apparently been agreed and unknown additional expense is incurred for environmental and flood reasons. Build costs are set at 81 million (add 5% for inflation and increased fuel costs). Apparently the Mayor read the report and came up with a loss of 440K which strangely is the amount L and Q claim they will be borrowing from the public purse. One final consideration Quadrant Construction are earmarked for the construction. The clues in the word Quadrant.

Serious question for anyone supporting what the council and L and Q want to do with this site.
After reading the viability report attached to the planning application can you identify areas of this development that provide real value for money for the taxpayer and local economy?.
Before considering this you are advised that the viability report was dated June 2011 and suggested that no S106 payments would be made to compensate the local community. Since then S106 payments of 3.8 million have apparently been agreed and unknown additional expense is incurred for environmental and flood reasons. Build costs are set at 81 million (add 5% for inflation and increased fuel costs). Apparently the Mayor read the report and came up with a loss of 440K which strangely is the amount L and Q claim they will be borrowing from the public purse. One final consideration Quadrant Construction are earmarked for the construction. The clues in the word Quadrant.bishbosh

Serious question for anyone supporting what the council and L and Q want to do with this site. After reading the viability report attached to the planning application can you identify areas of this development that provide real value for money for the taxpayer and local economy?. Before considering this you are advised that the viability report was dated June 2011 and suggested that no S106 payments would be made to compensate the local community. Since then S106 payments of 3.8 million have apparently been agreed and unknown additional expense is incurred for environmental and flood reasons. Build costs are set at 81 million (add 5% for inflation and increased fuel costs). Apparently the Mayor read the report and came up with a loss of 440K which strangely is the amount L and Q claim they will be borrowing from the public purse. One final consideration Quadrant Construction are earmarked for the construction. The clues in the word Quadrant.

Score: 0

mdj says...12:19pm Tue 13 Nov 12

' One final consideration Quadrant Construction are earmarked for the construction. The clues in the word Quadrant.' Aren't there EU rules about the open tendering of public works contracts? Or did this process take place before PP was given? That would mean that the prices are out of date. This sounds similar to what happened at Lloyd Park, when the Council had to 'transfer' funds from an Olympic fund to make up the entirely predictable hole in the budget.

' One final consideration Quadrant Construction are earmarked for the construction. The clues in the word Quadrant.'
Aren't there EU rules about the open tendering of public works contracts? Or did this process take place before PP was given? That would mean that the prices are out of date.
This sounds similar to what happened at Lloyd Park, when the Council had to 'transfer' funds from an Olympic fund to make up the entirely predictable hole in the budget.mdj

' One final consideration Quadrant Construction are earmarked for the construction. The clues in the word Quadrant.' Aren't there EU rules about the open tendering of public works contracts? Or did this process take place before PP was given? That would mean that the prices are out of date. This sounds similar to what happened at Lloyd Park, when the Council had to 'transfer' funds from an Olympic fund to make up the entirely predictable hole in the budget.

Score: 0

bishbosh says...1:25pm Tue 13 Nov 12

L and Q are deemed a public body..something they have unsuccessfully disputed in the courts. The Stow is a private purchase and L and Q would have all believe it is a private construction ala their partnership with Barratts on the final phase of the Emirates Stadium (no affordable housing). The chameleon like organisation seems able to change as they wish. They are where they are by a combination of private investment and taxpayers subsidies that has underpinned their growth over the years. Any surplus should be ploughed back into social housing and charitable causes. Yes there should be open tendering but I suspect mitigating losses by retaining construction in house maybe too attractive to resist. Check this issue out that provides a snapshot as to where the Stow could be in five years with no benefit to the local community. http://www.heidialex ander.org.uk/?p=668. The Catford site is owned eventually by HCA who are struggling to find funding to develop poposals agreed in 2008. It is interesting to note the Mayor of London Chairs the HCA London Board. I wonder if there will be any funding via the HCA for The Stow. Maybe that is why the Mayor seems to have read the viability differently to the rest of us. Also remember the Mayor bleated on about 50,000 new affordable homes by 2011 and it is he who reduced the affordable element from 50% to 35%. It seems he is happy to allow less than 20%..funny old world

L and Q are deemed a public body..something they have unsuccessfully disputed in the courts. The Stow is a private purchase and L and Q would have all believe it is a private construction ala their partnership with Barratts on the final phase of the Emirates Stadium (no affordable housing). The chameleon like organisation seems able to change as they wish. They are where they are by a combination of private investment and taxpayers subsidies that has underpinned their growth over the years. Any surplus should be ploughed back into social housing and charitable causes. Yes there should be open tendering but I suspect mitigating losses by retaining construction in house maybe too attractive to resist. Check this issue out that provides a snapshot as to where the Stow could be in five years with no benefit to the local community.
http://www.heidialex
ander.org.uk/?p=668.
The Catford site is owned eventually by HCA who are struggling to find funding to develop poposals agreed in 2008. It is interesting to note the Mayor of London Chairs the HCA London Board. I wonder if there will be any funding via the HCA for The Stow. Maybe that is why the Mayor seems to have read the viability differently to the rest of us. Also remember the Mayor bleated on about 50,000 new affordable homes by 2011 and it is he who reduced the affordable element from 50% to 35%. It seems he is happy to allow less than 20%..funny old worldbishbosh

L and Q are deemed a public body..something they have unsuccessfully disputed in the courts. The Stow is a private purchase and L and Q would have all believe it is a private construction ala their partnership with Barratts on the final phase of the Emirates Stadium (no affordable housing). The chameleon like organisation seems able to change as they wish. They are where they are by a combination of private investment and taxpayers subsidies that has underpinned their growth over the years. Any surplus should be ploughed back into social housing and charitable causes. Yes there should be open tendering but I suspect mitigating losses by retaining construction in house maybe too attractive to resist. Check this issue out that provides a snapshot as to where the Stow could be in five years with no benefit to the local community. http://www.heidialex ander.org.uk/?p=668. The Catford site is owned eventually by HCA who are struggling to find funding to develop poposals agreed in 2008. It is interesting to note the Mayor of London Chairs the HCA London Board. I wonder if there will be any funding via the HCA for The Stow. Maybe that is why the Mayor seems to have read the viability differently to the rest of us. Also remember the Mayor bleated on about 50,000 new affordable homes by 2011 and it is he who reduced the affordable element from 50% to 35%. It seems he is happy to allow less than 20%..funny old world

Score: 0

bishbosh says...1:32pm Tue 13 Nov 12

L and Q are deemed a public body..something they have unsuccessfully disputed in the courts. The Stow is a private purchase and L and Q would have all believe it is a private construction ala their partnership with Barratts on the final phase of the Emirates Stadium (no affordable housing). The chameleon like organisation seems able to change as they wish. They are where they are by a combination of private investment and taxpayers subsidies that has underpinned their growth over the years. Any surplus should be ploughed back into social housing and charitable causes. Yes there should be open tendering but I suspect mitigating losses by retaining construction in house maybe too attractive to resist. Check this issue out that provides a snapshot as to where the Stow could be in five years with no benefit to the local community. http://www.heidialex ander.org.uk/?p=668. The Catford site is owned eventually by HCA who are struggling to find funding to develop poposals agreed in 2008. It is interesting to note the Mayor of London Chairs the HCA London Board. I wonder if there will be any funding via the HCA for The Stow. Maybe that is why the Mayor seems to have read the viability differently to the rest of us. Also remember the Mayor bleated on about 50,000 new affordable homes by 2011 and it is he who reduced the affordable element from 50% to 35%. It seems he is happy to allow less than 20%..funny old world

L and Q are deemed a public body..something they have unsuccessfully disputed in the courts. The Stow is a private purchase and L and Q would have all believe it is a private construction ala their partnership with Barratts on the final phase of the Emirates Stadium (no affordable housing). The chameleon like organisation seems able to change as they wish. They are where they are by a combination of private investment and taxpayers subsidies that has underpinned their growth over the years. Any surplus should be ploughed back into social housing and charitable causes. Yes there should be open tendering but I suspect mitigating losses by retaining construction in house maybe too attractive to resist. Check this issue out that provides a snapshot as to where the Stow could be in five years with no benefit to the local community.
http://www.heidialex
ander.org.uk/?p=668.
The Catford site is owned eventually by HCA who are struggling to find funding to develop poposals agreed in 2008. It is interesting to note the Mayor of London Chairs the HCA London Board. I wonder if there will be any funding via the HCA for The Stow. Maybe that is why the Mayor seems to have read the viability differently to the rest of us. Also remember the Mayor bleated on about 50,000 new affordable homes by 2011 and it is he who reduced the affordable element from 50% to 35%. It seems he is happy to allow less than 20%..funny old worldbishbosh

L and Q are deemed a public body..something they have unsuccessfully disputed in the courts. The Stow is a private purchase and L and Q would have all believe it is a private construction ala their partnership with Barratts on the final phase of the Emirates Stadium (no affordable housing). The chameleon like organisation seems able to change as they wish. They are where they are by a combination of private investment and taxpayers subsidies that has underpinned their growth over the years. Any surplus should be ploughed back into social housing and charitable causes. Yes there should be open tendering but I suspect mitigating losses by retaining construction in house maybe too attractive to resist. Check this issue out that provides a snapshot as to where the Stow could be in five years with no benefit to the local community. http://www.heidialex ander.org.uk/?p=668. The Catford site is owned eventually by HCA who are struggling to find funding to develop poposals agreed in 2008. It is interesting to note the Mayor of London Chairs the HCA London Board. I wonder if there will be any funding via the HCA for The Stow. Maybe that is why the Mayor seems to have read the viability differently to the rest of us. Also remember the Mayor bleated on about 50,000 new affordable homes by 2011 and it is he who reduced the affordable element from 50% to 35%. It seems he is happy to allow less than 20%..funny old world

Score: 0

Walthamster says...7:32pm Wed 14 Nov 12

mdj wrote…

Mark, how does closing a place that employed several hundred people ,and replacing it with shoddy housing, fit in with Green Party policy? LBWF on its own account is the borough with the highest percentage of residents who have to have to travel outside its boundaries to go to work. The Stow's only transport links are by road, so the incomers will have to commute by vehicle, or draw benefits: not very Green, not very local! The Green Party must have a policy on population too, and thereby by implication one on immigration; how does it tie in with drawing more people into an area where work opportunities are deliberately being reduced by the Council? As someone broadly in agreement with the Green agenda, I don't think this is an issue where you should be nailing the party's colours to the mast.

Mdj, it's pointless trying to reason with Mark Dawes. I have tried on other threads. I speak as a totally disillusioned Green voter, who would never waste my vote on them again. And as a lifelong environmentalist, that breaks my heart.

[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote:
Mark, how does closing a place that employed several hundred people ,and replacing it with shoddy housing, fit in with Green Party policy? LBWF on its own account is the borough with the highest percentage of residents who have to have to travel outside its boundaries to go to work. The Stow's only transport links are by road, so the incomers will have to commute by vehicle, or draw benefits: not very Green, not very local!
The Green Party must have a policy on population too, and thereby by implication one on immigration; how does it tie in with drawing more people into an area where work opportunities are deliberately being reduced by the Council?
As someone broadly in agreement with the Green agenda, I don't think this is an issue where you should be nailing the party's colours to the mast.[/p][/quote]Mdj, it's pointless trying to reason with Mark Dawes. I have tried on other threads. I speak as a totally disillusioned Green voter, who would never waste my vote on them again. And as a lifelong environmentalist, that breaks my heart.Walthamster

mdj wrote…

Mark, how does closing a place that employed several hundred people ,and replacing it with shoddy housing, fit in with Green Party policy? LBWF on its own account is the borough with the highest percentage of residents who have to have to travel outside its boundaries to go to work. The Stow's only transport links are by road, so the incomers will have to commute by vehicle, or draw benefits: not very Green, not very local! The Green Party must have a policy on population too, and thereby by implication one on immigration; how does it tie in with drawing more people into an area where work opportunities are deliberately being reduced by the Council? As someone broadly in agreement with the Green agenda, I don't think this is an issue where you should be nailing the party's colours to the mast.

Mdj, it's pointless trying to reason with Mark Dawes. I have tried on other threads. I speak as a totally disillusioned Green voter, who would never waste my vote on them again. And as a lifelong environmentalist, that breaks my heart.

Score: 0

KWyatt-Lown says...8:30pm Wed 14 Nov 12

As anyone who may have read the exchanges after the article ; http://www.guardian- series.co.uk/your_lo cal_areas/10022892.N ew_Tesco__making_ind ependent_traders_los e_out_/ will be aware, I have been seeking a simple response from Cornbeefur to two very straightforward questions. Why he elects to hide behind his self-confessed “user name” and what, indeed, his real name is. Having been challenged by him on these same issues I was happy to provide an open and honest response. He has now spent the last seven days evading the questions himself, occasionally providing somewhat insulting and, indeed, frankly juvenile postings (I think we all might agree that “my dad’s bigger than your dad” hardly raises the bar on reasoned debate) that do little to enhance any reputation he might possibly seek to establish or maintain as a worthwhile contributor to grown-up and rational discussion within these pages. So, Cornbeefur, I ask you once again: please have the good grace to return my courtesy and answer my unambiguous questions. Thank you.

As anyone who may have read the exchanges after the article ; http://www.guardian-
series.co.uk/your_lo
cal_areas/10022892.N
ew_Tesco__making_ind
ependent_traders_los
e_out_/ will be aware, I have been seeking a simple response from Cornbeefur to two very straightforward questions. Why he elects to hide behind his self-confessed “user name” and what, indeed, his real name is.
Having been challenged by him on these same issues I was happy to provide an open and honest response. He has now spent the last seven days evading the questions himself, occasionally providing somewhat insulting and, indeed, frankly juvenile postings (I think we all might agree that “my dad’s bigger than your dad” hardly raises the bar on reasoned debate) that do little to enhance any reputation he might possibly seek to establish or maintain as a worthwhile contributor to grown-up and rational discussion within these pages.
So, Cornbeefur, I ask you once again: please have the good grace to return my courtesy and answer my unambiguous questions. Thank you.KWyatt-Lown

As anyone who may have read the exchanges after the article ; http://www.guardian- series.co.uk/your_lo cal_areas/10022892.N ew_Tesco__making_ind ependent_traders_los e_out_/ will be aware, I have been seeking a simple response from Cornbeefur to two very straightforward questions. Why he elects to hide behind his self-confessed “user name” and what, indeed, his real name is. Having been challenged by him on these same issues I was happy to provide an open and honest response. He has now spent the last seven days evading the questions himself, occasionally providing somewhat insulting and, indeed, frankly juvenile postings (I think we all might agree that “my dad’s bigger than your dad” hardly raises the bar on reasoned debate) that do little to enhance any reputation he might possibly seek to establish or maintain as a worthwhile contributor to grown-up and rational discussion within these pages. So, Cornbeefur, I ask you once again: please have the good grace to return my courtesy and answer my unambiguous questions. Thank you.

Score: 0

Mark Dawes says...8:30pm Wed 14 Nov 12

The Green Party is against the dog track because dog racing is a cruel “sport” but were certainly not closed to other proposals or ideas but the gambling industry lobbying has made this about dog racing only. We are against the austerity of the Government and believe in investing to create new jobs – there are other jobs than those in the gambling industry – and that would include Waltham Forest. There is also a desperate need for housing in London that needs to be addressed.

The Green Party is against the dog track because dog racing is a cruel “sport” but were certainly not closed to other proposals or ideas but the gambling industry lobbying has made this about dog racing only.
We are against the austerity of the Government and believe in investing to create new jobs – there are other jobs than those in the gambling industry – and that would include Waltham Forest. There is also a desperate need for housing in London that needs to be addressed.Mark Dawes

The Green Party is against the dog track because dog racing is a cruel “sport” but were certainly not closed to other proposals or ideas but the gambling industry lobbying has made this about dog racing only. We are against the austerity of the Government and believe in investing to create new jobs – there are other jobs than those in the gambling industry – and that would include Waltham Forest. There is also a desperate need for housing in London that needs to be addressed.

Score: 0

mdj says...10:29pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Thanks for getting back, Mark. I'm not sure the Green Party puts dog racing as high up the agenda as you do. The Stow supporters say that the arguments based on cruelty are unfairly directed towards them, and procedures at that track and its supporters. I have no idea who is right on that, but it seems to me that arguments against racing dogs would apply still more so to eating meat. I believe that the public is willing to listen to much of the Green agenda on the environment, pollution, resource depletion and localism. Hammering away on the one topic that will definitely NOT make new friends in this area seems to me destructive. It may well be true, as you say, that: 'There is also a desperate need for housing in London that needs to be addressed.' What does the Green Party say about the immigration policies that have brought this about in a country that had just reached Zero Population Growth? What is Green thinking about massing new homes in an area while directly exporting employment elsewhere at the same time? You are 'against the austerity of the Government'; what are your thoughts on the prodigality, underhandedness, misfeasance and incompetence of this Council, which is the issue here? And when you say that L+Q's reserves are 'not public money', how on earth do you justify this claim? What do you think of a charity that is also a member of North London Business's (Council-funded) Developers Forum?

Thanks for getting back, Mark.
I'm not sure the Green Party puts dog racing as high up the agenda as you do. The Stow supporters say that the arguments based on cruelty are unfairly directed towards them, and procedures at that track and its supporters. I have no idea who is right on that, but it seems to me that arguments against racing dogs would apply still more so to eating meat.
I believe that the public is willing to listen to much of the Green agenda on the environment, pollution, resource depletion and localism. Hammering away on the one topic that will definitely NOT make new friends in this area seems to me destructive.
It may well be true, as you say, that:
'There is also a desperate need for housing in London that needs to be addressed.' What does the Green Party say about the immigration policies that have brought this about in a country that had just reached Zero Population Growth? What is Green thinking about massing new homes in an area while directly exporting employment elsewhere at the same time?
You are 'against the austerity of the Government'; what are your thoughts on the prodigality, underhandedness, misfeasance and incompetence of this Council, which is the issue here? And when you say that L+Q's reserves are 'not public money', how on earth do you justify this claim? What do you think of a charity that is also a member of North London Business's (Council-funded) Developers Forum?mdj

Thanks for getting back, Mark. I'm not sure the Green Party puts dog racing as high up the agenda as you do. The Stow supporters say that the arguments based on cruelty are unfairly directed towards them, and procedures at that track and its supporters. I have no idea who is right on that, but it seems to me that arguments against racing dogs would apply still more so to eating meat. I believe that the public is willing to listen to much of the Green agenda on the environment, pollution, resource depletion and localism. Hammering away on the one topic that will definitely NOT make new friends in this area seems to me destructive. It may well be true, as you say, that: 'There is also a desperate need for housing in London that needs to be addressed.' What does the Green Party say about the immigration policies that have brought this about in a country that had just reached Zero Population Growth? What is Green thinking about massing new homes in an area while directly exporting employment elsewhere at the same time? You are 'against the austerity of the Government'; what are your thoughts on the prodigality, underhandedness, misfeasance and incompetence of this Council, which is the issue here? And when you say that L+Q's reserves are 'not public money', how on earth do you justify this claim? What do you think of a charity that is also a member of North London Business's (Council-funded) Developers Forum?

Score: 0

bishbosh says...12:28am Thu 15 Nov 12

@mdj...bang on..gratuitous meat eating presents far more threat to the animal kingdom than greyhound racing. Multi national companies employing millions of people throughout the world exploit animals to feed humans and make a profit. The three greyhounds I owned were treated better than many humans. The greens dont get this and makes them unelectable. Millions of pounds are given to charitable causes each year from the National Lottery...correct me if I am wrong but is that not a gamble? By the time I have written this blog it is likely 100,000 animals have lost their lives of which less than 10 maybe greyhounds.

@mdj...bang on..gratuitous meat eating presents far more threat to the animal kingdom than greyhound racing. Multi national companies employing millions of people throughout the world exploit animals to feed humans and make a profit. The three greyhounds I owned were treated better than many humans. The greens dont get this and makes them unelectable. Millions of pounds are given to charitable causes each year from the National Lottery...correct me if I am wrong but is that not a gamble? By the time I have written this blog it is likely 100,000 animals have lost their lives of which less than 10 maybe greyhounds.bishbosh

@mdj...bang on..gratuitous meat eating presents far more threat to the animal kingdom than greyhound racing. Multi national companies employing millions of people throughout the world exploit animals to feed humans and make a profit. The three greyhounds I owned were treated better than many humans. The greens dont get this and makes them unelectable. Millions of pounds are given to charitable causes each year from the National Lottery...correct me if I am wrong but is that not a gamble? By the time I have written this blog it is likely 100,000 animals have lost their lives of which less than 10 maybe greyhounds.

Score: 0

Cornbeefur says...1:25am Thu 15 Nov 12

bishbosh wrote…

@mdj...bang on..gratuitous meat eating presents far more threat to the animal kingdom than greyhound racing. Multi national companies employing millions of people throughout the world exploit animals to feed humans and make a profit. The three greyhounds I owned were treated better than many humans. The greens dont get this and makes them unelectable. Millions of pounds are given to charitable causes each year from the National Lottery...correct me if I am wrong but is that not a gamble? By the time I have written this blog it is likely 100,000 animals have lost their lives of which less than 10 maybe greyhounds.

Foie gras can still be purchased locally and is a special treat for many including yours truly at Christmas and other special occasions. I personally do enjoy it but others around me frown. Modern methods of production have altered any discomfort to the animals concerned. Greyhounds never eat the hare even if they catch it as it is a fluffy toy.

[quote][p][bold]bishbosh[/bold] wrote:
@mdj...bang on..gratuitous meat eating presents far more threat to the animal kingdom than greyhound racing. Multi national companies employing millions of people throughout the world exploit animals to feed humans and make a profit. The three greyhounds I owned were treated better than many humans. The greens dont get this and makes them unelectable. Millions of pounds are given to charitable causes each year from the National Lottery...correct me if I am wrong but is that not a gamble? By the time I have written this blog it is likely 100,000 animals have lost their lives of which less than 10 maybe greyhounds.[/p][/quote]Foie gras can still be purchased locally and is a special treat for many including yours truly at Christmas and other special occasions.
I personally do enjoy it but others around me frown.
Modern methods of production have altered any discomfort to the animals concerned.
Greyhounds never eat the hare even if they catch it as it is a fluffy toy.Cornbeefur

bishbosh wrote…

@mdj...bang on..gratuitous meat eating presents far more threat to the animal kingdom than greyhound racing. Multi national companies employing millions of people throughout the world exploit animals to feed humans and make a profit. The three greyhounds I owned were treated better than many humans. The greens dont get this and makes them unelectable. Millions of pounds are given to charitable causes each year from the National Lottery...correct me if I am wrong but is that not a gamble? By the time I have written this blog it is likely 100,000 animals have lost their lives of which less than 10 maybe greyhounds.

Foie gras can still be purchased locally and is a special treat for many including yours truly at Christmas and other special occasions. I personally do enjoy it but others around me frown. Modern methods of production have altered any discomfort to the animals concerned. Greyhounds never eat the hare even if they catch it as it is a fluffy toy.

Score: 0

Isaythat says...8:56am Thu 15 Nov 12

Does anyone have an update on the meeting between IDS and Eric Pickles?

Does anyone have an update on the meeting between IDS and Eric Pickles?Isaythat

Does anyone have an update on the meeting between IDS and Eric Pickles?

Score: 0

mazdaman says...9:59am Thu 15 Nov 12

Hmmmm...."modern methods of production have altered any discomfort to the animals concerned" Is this person on here for a bet? Did anyone tell these animals as they stand in line waiting for their throats to be cut that they wont have any discomfort? And while they hang with their blood dripping on to the flooor, can you imagine they are thinking, wow, this new method of production is great !!!! It angers me when threads go onto the cruelty side of sport. Life is cruel, full stop. it is desperatly sad when a dog is injured, but be clear, the massive majority of these dogs are fed well, excerised to be in great shape and race for their enjoyment. Yes it is what humans have trained them to do. Same as horses which race and many many more reach untimely deaths.....not many people keep ex racehorses as pets. Do we e mail all royalty and priviliged people to tell them all the race tracks are to close for housing and to stop breeding these horses? Take one drive through the countryside, see animal after animal left dead by traffic, do we ban cars and close all the plants down? Read the news, elderly people, children, killed every day by monstrous humans....do we ban sex and stop the human race? Life is cruel, but things have to be put in perspective. All i ask is that anyone who complains about the treatment of greyhounds has a good look at their life and ask wether anything they do, eat, drive or wear has caused animal suffering.......then you have the right to reply.

Hmmmm...."modern methods of production have altered any discomfort to the animals concerned"
Is this person on here for a bet?
Did anyone tell these animals as they stand in line waiting for their throats to be cut that they wont have any discomfort?
And while they hang with their blood dripping on to the flooor, can you imagine they are thinking, wow, this new method of production is great !!!!
It angers me when threads go onto the cruelty side of sport. Life is cruel, full stop.
it is desperatly sad when a dog is injured, but be clear, the massive majority of these dogs are fed well, excerised to be in great shape and race for their enjoyment. Yes it is what humans have trained them to do. Same as horses which race and many many more reach untimely deaths.....not many people keep ex racehorses as pets.
Do we e mail all royalty and priviliged people to tell them all the race tracks are to close for housing and to stop breeding these horses?
Take one drive through the countryside, see animal after animal left dead by traffic, do we ban cars and close all the plants down?
Read the news, elderly people, children, killed every day by monstrous humans....do we ban sex and stop the human race?
Life is cruel, but things have to be put in perspective. All i ask is that anyone who complains about the treatment of greyhounds has a good look at their life and ask wether anything they do, eat, drive or wear has caused animal suffering.......then you have the right to reply.mazdaman

Hmmmm...."modern methods of production have altered any discomfort to the animals concerned" Is this person on here for a bet? Did anyone tell these animals as they stand in line waiting for their throats to be cut that they wont have any discomfort? And while they hang with their blood dripping on to the flooor, can you imagine they are thinking, wow, this new method of production is great !!!! It angers me when threads go onto the cruelty side of sport. Life is cruel, full stop. it is desperatly sad when a dog is injured, but be clear, the massive majority of these dogs are fed well, excerised to be in great shape and race for their enjoyment. Yes it is what humans have trained them to do. Same as horses which race and many many more reach untimely deaths.....not many people keep ex racehorses as pets. Do we e mail all royalty and priviliged people to tell them all the race tracks are to close for housing and to stop breeding these horses? Take one drive through the countryside, see animal after animal left dead by traffic, do we ban cars and close all the plants down? Read the news, elderly people, children, killed every day by monstrous humans....do we ban sex and stop the human race? Life is cruel, but things have to be put in perspective. All i ask is that anyone who complains about the treatment of greyhounds has a good look at their life and ask wether anything they do, eat, drive or wear has caused animal suffering.......then you have the right to reply.

Score: 0

Cornbeefur says...10:22am Thu 15 Nov 12

mazdaman wrote…

Hmmmm...."moder n methods of production have altered any discomfort to the animals concerned" Is this person on here for a bet? Did anyone tell these animals as they stand in line waiting for their throats to be cut that they wont have any discomfort? And while they hang with their blood dripping on to the flooor, can you imagine they are thinking, wow, this new method of production is great !!!! It angers me when threads go onto the cruelty side of sport. Life is cruel, full stop. it is desperatly sad when a dog is injured, but be clear, the massive majority of these dogs are fed well, excerised to be in great shape and race for their enjoyment. Yes it is what humans have trained them to do. Same as horses which race and many many more reach untimely deaths.....not many people keep ex racehorses as pets. Do we e mail all royalty and priviliged people to tell them all the race tracks are to close for housing and to stop breeding these horses? Take one drive through the countryside, see animal after animal left dead by traffic, do we ban cars and close all the plants down? Read the news, elderly people, children, killed every day by monstrous humans....do we ban sex and stop the human race? Life is cruel, but things have to be put in perspective. All i ask is that anyone who complains about the treatment of greyhounds has a good look at their life and ask wether anything they do, eat, drive or wear has caused animal suffering.......then you have the right to reply.

Greyhounds are often treated like a commodity with the finest treated very well, those who do not make the grade are discarded, in many cases destroyed with a few being 'Re homed' You can buy a Greyhound for less than £100 and become 'an owner' One often hears the phrase 'He has a lot of greyhounds' or 'races greyhounds' It is of course the upkeep and training that is the vast expense involved that some owners do not realise when they get involved. I have attended many race meeting but now feel that this sport is out-dated as it is commen for dogs to suffer in a race when they get bawked on bends and fly in the air. Often have to get put down on the track. Like Greyhound Racing, Foie gras is not banned in this Country and although some may think it cruel production, modern methods have been adapted to cause far less suffering, whereas with greyhounds the sport is what it is and it is hard to improve the dogs safety. Foie gras is a specialist food which has been produced for many years and is frankly delicious and should it be banned will only create a market underground to produce the same. Accordingly, whilst Disagree with Dog Racing now, I enjoy Foie Gras and wear leather shoes.

[quote][p][bold]mazdaman[/bold] wrote:
Hmmmm...."moder
n methods of production have altered any discomfort to the animals concerned"
Is this person on here for a bet?
Did anyone tell these animals as they stand in line waiting for their throats to be cut that they wont have any discomfort?
And while they hang with their blood dripping on to the flooor, can you imagine they are thinking, wow, this new method of production is great !!!!
It angers me when threads go onto the cruelty side of sport. Life is cruel, full stop.
it is desperatly sad when a dog is injured, but be clear, the massive majority of these dogs are fed well, excerised to be in great shape and race for their enjoyment. Yes it is what humans have trained them to do. Same as horses which race and many many more reach untimely deaths.....not many people keep ex racehorses as pets.
Do we e mail all royalty and priviliged people to tell them all the race tracks are to close for housing and to stop breeding these horses?
Take one drive through the countryside, see animal after animal left dead by traffic, do we ban cars and close all the plants down?
Read the news, elderly people, children, killed every day by monstrous humans....do we ban sex and stop the human race?
Life is cruel, but things have to be put in perspective. All i ask is that anyone who complains about the treatment of greyhounds has a good look at their life and ask wether anything they do, eat, drive or wear has caused animal suffering.......then you have the right to reply.[/p][/quote]Greyhounds are often treated like a commodity with the finest treated very well, those who do not make the grade are discarded, in many cases destroyed with a few being 'Re homed'
You can buy a Greyhound for less than £100 and become 'an owner'
One often hears the phrase 'He has a lot of greyhounds' or 'races greyhounds'
It is of course the upkeep and training that is the vast expense involved that some owners do not realise when they get involved.
I have attended many race meeting but now feel that this sport is out-dated as it is commen for dogs to suffer in a race when they get bawked on bends and fly in the air. Often have to get put down on the track.
Like Greyhound Racing, Foie gras is not banned in this Country and although some may think it cruel production, modern methods have been adapted to cause far less suffering, whereas with greyhounds the sport is what it is and it is hard to improve the dogs safety.
Foie gras is a specialist food which has been produced for many years and is frankly delicious and should it be banned will only create a market underground to produce the same.
Accordingly, whilst Disagree with Dog Racing now, I enjoy Foie Gras and wear leather shoes.Cornbeefur

mazdaman wrote…

Hmmmm...."moder n methods of production have altered any discomfort to the animals concerned" Is this person on here for a bet? Did anyone tell these animals as they stand in line waiting for their throats to be cut that they wont have any discomfort? And while they hang with their blood dripping on to the flooor, can you imagine they are thinking, wow, this new method of production is great !!!! It angers me when threads go onto the cruelty side of sport. Life is cruel, full stop. it is desperatly sad when a dog is injured, but be clear, the massive majority of these dogs are fed well, excerised to be in great shape and race for their enjoyment. Yes it is what humans have trained them to do. Same as horses which race and many many more reach untimely deaths.....not many people keep ex racehorses as pets. Do we e mail all royalty and priviliged people to tell them all the race tracks are to close for housing and to stop breeding these horses? Take one drive through the countryside, see animal after animal left dead by traffic, do we ban cars and close all the plants down? Read the news, elderly people, children, killed every day by monstrous humans....do we ban sex and stop the human race? Life is cruel, but things have to be put in perspective. All i ask is that anyone who complains about the treatment of greyhounds has a good look at their life and ask wether anything they do, eat, drive or wear has caused animal suffering.......then you have the right to reply.

Greyhounds are often treated like a commodity with the finest treated very well, those who do not make the grade are discarded, in many cases destroyed with a few being 'Re homed' You can buy a Greyhound for less than £100 and become 'an owner' One often hears the phrase 'He has a lot of greyhounds' or 'races greyhounds' It is of course the upkeep and training that is the vast expense involved that some owners do not realise when they get involved. I have attended many race meeting but now feel that this sport is out-dated as it is commen for dogs to suffer in a race when they get bawked on bends and fly in the air. Often have to get put down on the track. Like Greyhound Racing, Foie gras is not banned in this Country and although some may think it cruel production, modern methods have been adapted to cause far less suffering, whereas with greyhounds the sport is what it is and it is hard to improve the dogs safety. Foie gras is a specialist food which has been produced for many years and is frankly delicious and should it be banned will only create a market underground to produce the same. Accordingly, whilst Disagree with Dog Racing now, I enjoy Foie Gras and wear leather shoes.

Score: 0

mazdaman says...11:05am Thu 15 Nov 12

Baulked....... Its quite strange how you say that by banning something it will drive it underground...... Perhaps by not fighting councillors and allowing big companies to close down leisure facilities like Walthamstow stadium, these dogs will have to run in fenced off fields risking putting legs in divets and falling dangerously with no vet in attendence ? Putting greyhound racing aside for the moment...... this quest seems to be about 4 labour councillors, a housing authority that has been hoodwinked by the Chandler family and the very fact these councillors are totally disregarding local majority feeling that the proposed plans are not wanted. Even those not wanting a greyhound track do not want what L and Q have proposed. Why is this massive loss to the tax payer....me......bei ng allowed? Why are the rules regarding the amount of social affordable homes being changed? Why are the details af payments to local services not finalised? Why did no one look into gate receipts and attendance at the track and not realise the Chandlers were directing millions away from the balance sheet to allow the council an easy change of use planning decision? these are questions that surely must be answered?

Baulked.......
Its quite strange how you say that by banning something it will drive it underground......
Perhaps by not fighting councillors and allowing big companies to close down leisure facilities like Walthamstow stadium, these dogs will have to run in fenced off fields risking putting legs in divets and falling dangerously with no vet in attendence ?
Putting greyhound racing aside for the moment...... this quest seems to be about 4 labour councillors, a housing authority that has been hoodwinked by the Chandler family and the very fact these councillors are totally disregarding local majority feeling that the proposed plans are not wanted. Even those not wanting a greyhound track do not want what L and Q have proposed.
Why is this massive loss to the tax payer....me......bei
ng allowed?
Why are the rules regarding the amount of social affordable homes being changed?
Why are the details af payments to local services not finalised?
Why did no one look into gate receipts and attendance at the track and not realise the Chandlers were directing millions away from the balance sheet to allow the council an easy change of use planning decision?
these are questions that surely must be answered?mazdaman

Baulked....... Its quite strange how you say that by banning something it will drive it underground...... Perhaps by not fighting councillors and allowing big companies to close down leisure facilities like Walthamstow stadium, these dogs will have to run in fenced off fields risking putting legs in divets and falling dangerously with no vet in attendence ? Putting greyhound racing aside for the moment...... this quest seems to be about 4 labour councillors, a housing authority that has been hoodwinked by the Chandler family and the very fact these councillors are totally disregarding local majority feeling that the proposed plans are not wanted. Even those not wanting a greyhound track do not want what L and Q have proposed. Why is this massive loss to the tax payer....me......bei ng allowed? Why are the rules regarding the amount of social affordable homes being changed? Why are the details af payments to local services not finalised? Why did no one look into gate receipts and attendance at the track and not realise the Chandlers were directing millions away from the balance sheet to allow the council an easy change of use planning decision? these are questions that surely must be answered?

Score: 0

Mark Dawes says...8:46pm Thu 15 Nov 12

@mdj The Green Party campaigns on many other issues including those you mention, the Walthamstow Stadium has had a high profile recently because of the recent Mayor’s decision. Rather than fill the thread with Green policies, please check out our website www.greenparty.org.u k for general issues. We have been opposed to the Council on a number of issues like cuts, selling of assets likes libraries etc. The L&Q reserves are not now public money - I have issues with Government policy on housing and housing associations and with the L&Q scheme and it’s lack of social housing etc however, the gambling industry have been putting out misinformation on the L&Q scheme to discredit it to bring back dog racing. I think it important the debate is based on the facts. @bishbosh I agree that the meat industry causes more suffering than dog racing which is why we have been campaigning for years against factory farming, have policies to encourage people to eat less meat & dairy, support the meat-free Monday campaign and have recently been campaigned against the Provender restaurant in Wanstead selling cruel foie gras. However, I don’t think because the meat industry causes more suffering than dog racing means we should not try to stop the cruelty of dog racing as well. @mazdaman I don’t think the fact that there is cruelty in life should mean that we do not try to stop cruelty when we can or that we should cause more cruelty when we do not need to.

@mdj
The Green Party campaigns on many other issues including those you mention, the Walthamstow Stadium has had a high profile recently because of the recent Mayor’s decision. Rather than fill the thread with Green policies, please check out our website www.greenparty.org.u
k for general issues. We have been opposed to the Council on a number of issues like cuts, selling of assets likes libraries etc.
The L&Q reserves are not now public money - I have issues with Government policy on housing and housing associations and with the L&Q scheme and it’s lack of social housing etc however, the gambling industry have been putting out misinformation on the L&Q scheme to discredit it to bring back dog racing. I think it important the debate is based on the facts.
@bishbosh
I agree that the meat industry causes more suffering than dog racing which is why we have been campaigning for years against factory farming, have policies to encourage people to eat less meat & dairy, support the meat-free Monday campaign and have recently been campaigned against the Provender restaurant in Wanstead selling cruel foie gras. However, I don’t think because the meat industry causes more suffering than dog racing means we should not try to stop the cruelty of dog racing as well.
@mazdaman
I don’t think the fact that there is cruelty in life should mean that we do not try to stop cruelty when we can or that we should cause more cruelty when we do not need to.Mark Dawes

@mdj The Green Party campaigns on many other issues including those you mention, the Walthamstow Stadium has had a high profile recently because of the recent Mayor’s decision. Rather than fill the thread with Green policies, please check out our website www.greenparty.org.u k for general issues. We have been opposed to the Council on a number of issues like cuts, selling of assets likes libraries etc. The L&Q reserves are not now public money - I have issues with Government policy on housing and housing associations and with the L&Q scheme and it’s lack of social housing etc however, the gambling industry have been putting out misinformation on the L&Q scheme to discredit it to bring back dog racing. I think it important the debate is based on the facts. @bishbosh I agree that the meat industry causes more suffering than dog racing which is why we have been campaigning for years against factory farming, have policies to encourage people to eat less meat & dairy, support the meat-free Monday campaign and have recently been campaigned against the Provender restaurant in Wanstead selling cruel foie gras. However, I don’t think because the meat industry causes more suffering than dog racing means we should not try to stop the cruelty of dog racing as well. @mazdaman I don’t think the fact that there is cruelty in life should mean that we do not try to stop cruelty when we can or that we should cause more cruelty when we do not need to.

Score: 0

Walthamster says...9:27pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Mazdaman, like you, I'm more concerned about cruelty to the people of Waltham Forest. The real harm and grief this development is going to cause. I've got used to politicians pretending to serve the people while only carrying out their own agendas. But I'm surprised that the Green Party is so open about it.

Mazdaman, like you, I'm more concerned about cruelty to the people of Waltham Forest. The real harm and grief this development is going to cause.
I've got used to politicians pretending to serve the people while only carrying out their own agendas. But I'm surprised that the Green Party is so open about it.Walthamster

Mazdaman, like you, I'm more concerned about cruelty to the people of Waltham Forest. The real harm and grief this development is going to cause. I've got used to politicians pretending to serve the people while only carrying out their own agendas. But I'm surprised that the Green Party is so open about it.

Score: 0

mdj says...2:15pm Fri 16 Nov 12

'The Green Party campaigns on many other issues including those you mention..' Yes Mark, but what do you think it does to the prospects of your party's local candidates, some of whom are of high calibre, by leading on the last possible issue that will attract support locally? Will you next be taking your thoughts on meat and animal cruelty to our many local halal butchers ?

'The Green Party campaigns on many other issues including those you mention..'
Yes Mark, but what do you think it does to the prospects of your party's local candidates, some of whom are of high calibre, by leading on the last possible issue that will attract support locally?
Will you next be taking your thoughts on meat and animal cruelty to our many local halal butchers ?mdj

'The Green Party campaigns on many other issues including those you mention..' Yes Mark, but what do you think it does to the prospects of your party's local candidates, some of whom are of high calibre, by leading on the last possible issue that will attract support locally? Will you next be taking your thoughts on meat and animal cruelty to our many local halal butchers ?

Score: 0

Cornbeefur says...11:59pm Fri 16 Nov 12

mdj wrote…

'The Green Party campaigns on many other issues including those you mention..' Yes Mark, but what do you think it does to the prospects of your party's local candidates, some of whom are of high calibre, by leading on the last possible issue that will attract support locally? Will you next be taking your thoughts on meat and animal cruelty to our many local halal butchers ?

What is it with that Leaders hair though? Have a word please?

[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote:
'The Green Party campaigns on many other issues including those you mention..'
Yes Mark, but what do you think it does to the prospects of your party's local candidates, some of whom are of high calibre, by leading on the last possible issue that will attract support locally?
Will you next be taking your thoughts on meat and animal cruelty to our many local halal butchers ?[/p][/quote]What is it with that Leaders hair though?
Have a word please?Cornbeefur

mdj wrote…

'The Green Party campaigns on many other issues including those you mention..' Yes Mark, but what do you think it does to the prospects of your party's local candidates, some of whom are of high calibre, by leading on the last possible issue that will attract support locally? Will you next be taking your thoughts on meat and animal cruelty to our many local halal butchers ?

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here